Free Essay

The Iraqi War: Was It the Right Thing to Do?

In: English and Literature

Submitted By franboyd
Words 3164
Pages 13
Running head: THE IRAQI WAR: WAS IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

The Iraqi War: Was it the Right Thing to Do?
XXXXXX
University
Abstract
The invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional, had no real justification for happening and has severely damaged relations with our allies. Most importantly, Saddam Hussein was considered a threat and it was believed that he had weapons of mass destruction, would take on the U.S in an instant and was accused of having ties to the events of September 11, 2006 and the Al-Quaeda terrorist network. None of this could be proved and it appears as if it were all just convenient statements made by the administration to find a way to make it a justifiable cause.
The Iraqi War: Was it the Right Thing to Do? The invasion was unconstitutional, against international law, violated the Christian doctrine of "just war" and has damaged U.S. relations with its allies. It has wreaked havoc in the Muslim world, where there's plenty of havoc already, and most importantly, it has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. Frankly, it’s surprising it hasn’t resulted in dropping a nuclear bomb on Baghdad. Claims made prewar regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have all proved to be wrong; the number of terrorists in Iraq has increased rather than decreased and the abuse inflicted on Iraqi detainees contradicts the most basic values the Administration claimed it would bring to Iraq (Savoy, 2004). President Bush’s actions portray him as an individual that has the right to attack Iraq anytime he wants to due to his position. It's false, and very dangerous for a democracy. Our founding fathers gave the right to Congress and only to Congress to make the decision of whether to take the United States to war or not. It's clearly there in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. The founders knew that to give the President such power would risk dragging the country and its people into one senseless war after another. Unfortunately, since World War II, Presidents have usurped this power of Congress, and Congress has abdicated it. There has not been a Congressional declaration of war since December 1941, though there sure have been plenty of wars since then, most notably Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War, but also Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, and a host of other nations the United States has assaulted directly or covertly over the last six decades (Rothschild, 2002). Let it first be known that as a former member of the U.S. Armed Forces, the official definition of a “war” can only be related to the fact if there is a 5 star general appointed by our Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States. Therefore, as noted earlier, references to the wars of Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf do not specifically include Panama, Grenada, and the Dominican Republic as real wars as the author if this reference stated. Wars have appointed 5 star generals and conflicts do not. Therefore, if there is no 5 star general in power, there is officially no war. There is no such appointment at this time for the Iraqi conflict. To this extent, we have a lawless Presidency. If we are to restore our democracy, we need to insist that the Constitution be followed. That means Congress, not the President, has the sole power to declare war. In the current circumstance of Iraq, the President's cronies argue that he has the authority to wage war by virtue of two Congressional acts. First, in 1991, Congress gave the President the authorization to wage war against Saddam Hussein (though technically it did not declare war). But how open-ended is this authorization? Congress did not intend to give the President a blank check to wage war against Iraq forever, or anytime he happened to feel like it. The Congress did not grant the President the right to change the regime there more than a decade later. The second Congressional act that Bush's cheerleaders cite is the September 14, 2001, use of force authorization, which allows Bush to attack any person, group, or country that he believes was involved in the attack of 9/11. Now we all know that the Bush administration has been trying their hardest to pin some of the blame for that unforgettable act on Saddam Hussein, but there's hardly a tissue connecting the two. International law is quite clear: Country A cannot attack Country B unless Country B has already attacked Country A or is about to attack country A. Iraq has not attacked the United States and it's not about to. Saddam, as brutal as he is, and even though he’s no longer in power, his history as a leader is that he loved to cling to power. He knew that attacking the United States would be suicidal. Actually, under international law, Saddam Hussein had a better case for attacking the United States today than Bush had for attacking Iraq, since Bush is threatened imminent war against Iraq. Furthermore, for the United States to take this aggressive action without the approval of the U.N. Security Council would be a violation of the U.N. charter, which the United States has ratified. To get around this, the Bush Administration hyped the danger that Saddam posed to the United States. To further blow it out of proportion, Cheney had called Saddam a "mortal threat." The United States has a $400 billion Pentagon budget; Iraq's military budget is approximately $4 billion. The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons; Iraq doesn't have one yet, much less the means to deliver it. Even if Iraq obtained one nuclear weapon or two, would that present a "mortal" danger to the United States? Remember, the United States managed to survive for four decades against an enemy with thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us (does anyone remember the former Soviet Union?). The fact is, there is no justification under international law or under Christian "just war" theory for Bush to attack Iraq. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has said so. There is no precipitating act that Saddam Hussein has engaged in that would justify it, nor has President Bush exhausted all peaceful means to resolve the issue, as required by just war theory. Quite the contrary: former Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney were openly disdainful of getting U.N. inspectors back in, which would have been the best way to grind down whatever program Saddam Hussein had for weapons of mass destruction (Rothchild, 2002). As a sidebar, we heard a lot about Saddam Hussein kicking out weapons inspectors. But remember, President Clinton was as much to blame for those inspectors having left Iraq as anyone. Saddam did not kick them out. Clinton pulled them out right before he decided to wage his own little bombing attack on Iraq back in December 1998, to deflect attention from Monica Lewinsky (Rothschild, 2002). Whether starting a preemptive war is justified in a particular instance is not primarily a question of international law. The critical question is whether the action is one of aggression or of legitimate self-defense, and no law can answer that. There are, however, criteria for judging the action: the unwritten understandings international players reach on an ongoing basis as to what is within the boundaries. To justify a resort to preemptive war, a government needs to give reasonable evidence that the step was necessary, forced upon the initiator by its opponents, and also that it represented a lesser evil, i.e., that the dangers and evils averted by war outweighed those caused the international community by initiating it. This requires showing that the threat to be preempted is (a) clear and imminent, such that prompt action is required to meet it; (b) direct, that is, threatening the party initiating the conflict in specific concrete ways, thus entitling that party to act preemptively; (c) critical, in the sense that the vital interests of the initiating party face unacceptable harm and danger; and (d) unmanageable, meaning not capable of being deterred or dealt with by other peaceful means. These criteria are naturally open to interpretation and contest. They are stringent; most claims made to justify preemptive wars do not pass the test, which is as it should be. But the criteria are not unrealistic and do allow for preemptive war in certain particular cases. To show that the threat is clear and imminent, the president and his supporters repeatedly insisted that Saddam Hussein had long wanted weapons of mass destruction and tried to develop them. Since 1998, he has prevented the United Nations' international inspectors from returning to Iraq. So far, nothing has been found, not to say he might have been close to acquiring them since he had the capability. This proves the opposite of what is required--that the threat was not clear and imminent. It indicated what government officials must admit: we simply did not know whether Iraq had developed weapons of mass destruction, or whether it would, or when. Pleas from our closest allies, including even Tony Blair in Britain, that there must be a real effort to get UN inspectors back into Iraq before taking any other action against it, met with impatient skepticism. In short, the administration really did not know whether there was clear and imminent threat from Iraq, could not prove that one exists, and resisted proposals for finding out because the answer might undermine its plans for war. To show that the threat is direct, i.e., specific, concrete, and pointed at the United States, the administration and other advocates of preemptive war took a look at Saddam Hussein’s criminal record and character, especially the fact that he used poison gas in his war against Iran and against his own people in the 1980s and has resorted to brutal repression since, and that if and when he obtains weapons of mass destruction he could and would use them against the United States or its allies in the region. In so doing, they ignored certain inconvenient facts – that the United States generally supported Iraq in its war against Iran, may have known and winked at his use of chemical weapons, and never at that time considered Hussein’s attack on Iran or the atrocities encountered in it grounds for overthrowing him, and that the people whom Hussein brutally repressed in 1991 were mainly Kurds whom the United States encouraged to rise against him and then failed to support. The main point, however, is that again these arguments fail to prove what they are supposed to – i.e., that the threat from Iraq was concrete, specific, and directed against the United States or any American ally. They proved only what hardly needs proof, that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless individual who would do anything to stay in power, including using poison gas against external and internal enemies in a losing war. He might indeed use weapons of mass destruction against anyone for reasons of political survival – a point which counts if anything against attacking him and putting him into that kind of corner. But this says nothing about what he might do with them under other circumstances for other purposes and certainly fails to show that he would use them against the United States or its allies or allow terrorists to do so. Stalin had nuclear weapons, was more imbalanced than Hussein and even more paranoid about threats to his reign, and his record of atrocities against his own people was far worse than Hussein’s, yet none of this gave any indication whether or how he would use nuclear weapons. In fact, it is extremely unlikely that Hussein would do something so suicidal as to attack the United States or one of its allies directly, or allow a scapegoat to do so, and the administration knows it. One expert witness at the Senate hearings on the proposed campaign against Iraq, frankly admitting this, remarked that the real danger was that possessing such weapons would give Hussein and Iraq more influence in the region (a significant admission). The administration’s case thus fails both the imminence and the directness tests. Its attempts to prove that the threat is critical don’t hold water. They consist mainly of repeatedly invoking the memory of September 11, 2001 and the war on terrorism, the right of American citizens to security against terrifying new threats revealed by that attack, the duty of their government to provide that security at all costs, and (once again) the possibility that Hussein, if he does get control of nuclear or other weapons, will supply them to terrorists for use against the United States. All this lays the basis for the general doctrine that the United States has a right to prevent weapons of mass destruction from coming into the hands of evil, hostile regimes by any means necessary. The threat of international terrorism, even if it were the critical danger the administration claims it to be, did not stem from Hussein or Iraq and would not be met by ousting him. Despite many efforts, no one in the administration has ever proved there was a connection between Hussein or others in the Iraqi regime and September 11 or al-Qaeda and its terrorist activities. The evidence and probabilities, all well-known, point the other way. Hussein’s regime and his ruling party are secular rather than Islamist. He rules a country deeply divided along ethnic and religious lines, and belongs to a branch of Islam (the Sunnis) that is a minority in Iraq. Why should a ruler obsessed with maintaining his power collaborate with some of his most dangerous enemies (Schroeder, 2002)? In addition, the just war theory requires that the risks of doing more harm than good with a war must be minimal. But with this invasion those risks cannot be dismissed lightly. Let's look at some of those risks. First, on the diplomatic front, a unilateral war against Iraq--or even one with our ally Tony Blair on board--would drive a wedge between the United States and many of its allies in Europe and around the world. The German government has already said it would not support such an adventure. The French are not enthusiastic, nor are the Canadians, the Russians, and the Turks. And Saudi Arabia, whose kingdom (OK, whose oil--the United States fought to defend in the first Gulf War), wouldn't even allow U.S. troops to use its land as a staging ground. Egypt and Jordan are also opposed to this war. This was the second Muslim nation the United States has invaded in the last two years. Scenes of innocent Iraqis being killed on Al Jazeera has not enhanced the image of the United States in the Muslim world, an image already badly smeared by Ariel Sharon's offensive against the Palestinians and the 11-year embargo the U.S. insists that the U.N. impose on Iraq, an embargo that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids (Rothschild, 2002). On the economic front, this conflict in Iraq has spiked the cost of oil, since Iraq is a leading oil supplier, and since other big oil suppliers--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran --are right next door. Now our economy is not the best it could be, but the invasion of Iraq had tipped it back into a recession. Here’s what’s so ironic militarily speaking. Bush's invasion could have increased the odds that Saddam Hussein would use chemical or biological weapons. In 1991, he had chemical or biological weapons loaded onto missiles. The elder Bush warned Saddam that if he used those weapons, he would face devastating retaliation. Everyone, including Saddam, understood that to mean the U.S. would drop a nuclear bomb on him. So what did he do? He backed down and didn't use those weapons. But today, with Saddam out of power, he had no incentive not to throw whatever vials of chemical or biological weapons he might have lying around at U.S. troops or at Israel. This could have inflicted awful casualties on U.S. troops or Israeli civilians, and then what? Then, the worst case might have come true and George W. would drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq; the first time in 57 years that the world has seen such a hideous device used in warfare. The lesson of 1991 should be that Saddam Hussein knew not to use his chemical or biological weapons. What evidence was there that he was more reckless and suicidal when he was in power at the time of the invasion than when he was back in 1991? He hadn't recently invaded another country. He hadn't recently gassed the Kurds or the Iranians (which he did, but only when he was receiving military intelligence from the United States) (Rothschild, 2002). Iraq is Exhibit A. The threat from Iraq has not changed in the past year, yet it no longer seems incredible to believe that, just maybe, even before we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq might use them against us. The Bush administration officials have said that they cannot wait until we see the mushroom cloud to act against this threat. Based on available information, however, there is no new evidence, no new precipitating event, no new threatening actions by the Iraqi government, no new reason to go to war that did not exist one, two, four, or even six years ago. It is entirely legitimate to ask, therefore: Why? What is the basis for claiming a unilateral right to use preventive force to overthrow the Iraqi regime? What would be the consequences for Iraq, the Middle East, and international relations (Powers, 2002)? We are quickly approaching nearly 3,000 U.S. casualties since the invasion in March 2003. What do we have to show for it? We have a national debt that has increased by leaps and bounds due to the cost of keeping troops on the ground over there, the chance for weakening our forces when we have greater issues with greater consequences such as North Korea looming over us, and the thousands of children who never got to know their mom or dad because they became a statistic.
References

Powers, G.F. (2002, December 17). Essay read at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Washington, D.C. [Transcript]. Retrieved December 4, 2006, from http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/peace/powers.htm
Rothschild, M. (2002, August). The case against the Iraq war. The Progressive. Retrieved November 28, 2006, from http://progressive.org/node/1476
Savoy, P. (2004, May). The moral case against the Iraq war. The Nation. Retrieved November 28, 2006, from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040531/savoy
Schroeder, P.W. (2002, October 21). Iraq: The case against preemptive war. The American Conservative. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from http://www.amconmag.com/2002/2002_10_21/iraq.html

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

History

...Elbe Vargas HIST 2340 November 1, 2011 Iraqis journey to Democracy The Iraqi government was the last government to try to build a democratic government. Mostly known for its ruling dictator Suddam Hussein, it is known for having a tyrant type of government rooted in Islamic religious practices. But with the help of the United States, and other countries, Iraqis will create a new era: the era of democracy. It all started on January 30, 2005 when an Iraq election promoted and built democracy. The world was speechless by the results of the significant amount of numbers to vote for Iraq’s Transitional National Assembly. The Iraqi government took a huge risk by publically announcing that voting was a human right in practicing Democracy. The United States played a huge role in helping Iraq promote and build democracy, with the final goal of ending dictatorship. For the past twenty five years the U.S. has provided crucial support for democracy as well as a basic principle of the U.S. foreign policy. Not only has America helped Iraq turn away from dictatorship, but it has also helped other countries such as Philippines, Nicaragua, Indonesia, and Ukraine toward democracy. The U.S. has grown to have the label of “leadership” stamped on them when it comes to helping other countries towards Democracy. Today electoral democracies now exist in 120 out of 192 countries that are about 63 percent of the world’s population! (Soudriette, 2005) One author however disagrees with the......

Words: 3258 - Pages: 14

Free Essay

Ch 13 Nation-States

...Chapter 13 Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Nations, States, and Nation-States A. Logistics Students’ Time Requirements Activity 1: The Rise of Nationalism and the Fall of Yugoslavia Readings 60-90 minutes Fill in the blanks 75-90 minutes Activity 2: Iraqaphobia Readings 60-90 minutes Fill in the blanks 75-90 minutes The fill-in-the-blanks activity works very well as an in-class group project. It helps for students to be able to discuss the questions and readings with other students. If so, it is absolutely essential that students read the assigned articles in advance of the discussion. They will need to consult the readings to find pertinent passages, but if they are reading it for the first time during group work, they will either not finish or not contribute. I remind my students of this fact several times in the days leading up to the project. If students don’t finish during class, they can finish at home. If done in groups in class, you may wish to suggest that a different student act as recorder for each block of questions. Also, assign a different student to be the discussion leader/gatekeeper to keep the discussion on track and prevent any single individual from dominating the discussion. A third student could function as timekeeper. See Chapter 11 and 14 role-playing activities for further discussion of these tasks. Remind students that Balkan and Middle East politics are always changing and can get...

Words: 32987 - Pages: 132

Premium Essay

Cultural Perspectives

...Believe it or not, the United States military has been at war for almost 12 years straight. After a long and exhausting battle in Iraq we have unfortunately entered into conflict with rebels in Afghanistan. All of this fighting and time spent in theater has taught military members many lessons. Maybe the biggest lesson learned is that we need more cultural awareness among all branches of the military. In this paper we will analyze this cultural issue and how it affects the United States military along with the people of that country. We will also identify ethical perspectives in the organization and compare these ethical perspectives across cultures involved in military operations. The purpose of this essay is to identify the cultural issue and try to understand how cultural awareness can help the military as an organization. According to the United States Army, culture is a system of shared beliefs, values, customs and behaviors that members of a society use to contend with their world and with one another. It is believed by many military leaders that cultural awareness is the key to faster and more accurate decision making. On the belief that future wars will be similar to the last two we must spend more resources on getting to know the culture and the people that soldiers are interacting with everyday. For example, how would you react if you were walking down the street and someone sticks their middle finger up at you? Well for anyone used to American culture this would......

Words: 1034 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Comparasion of Ww2 and Iraq War

...War is a very broad term for writing. Under this word, everybody imagine black and white soldier with a gun in a dusty environment. My question is “why?”. Why is the basic question of all. Existence on earth, learning, reading, or why somebody listen one ear in and another ear out? Why do we have war? Why people argue?, fight?. Why do we have quarrels?, rivalry or racing? The answer is simple. Proving power is not really right move. Subjugation is the wrong way of showing the great powers or superpowers. Power should provide love and support, not a battle about who is better. When I asked my younger sister what is the war, she said, "Battles and shooters where people kills and dies." This way you also our ancestors proved and showed their "size". Dictators, leaders of fascism and nationalism did not just wake up one day and became dictators. These people started manifesting in early childhood. At the school in the form of bullying or vandalism, and if they do not have a steady hand above them, their "abilities" develop even further. Lack of attention or care from parents, despise, not enough friends- all of this bad examples play big role and they are benefits to become person like that. Maybe we should help people like that and not brushed them aside because they are different. They have their reason why they are different. In my essay I would like to compare two wars, World War II and Iraq war. What are the differences and what are the similarities? World War......

Words: 1675 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Why Did Suddam Hussein Leave Iraq

...from grave danger,” said President George W. Bush on the Morning of March 19, 2003, declaring the U.S. involvement in the Second Gulf War. On March 17, 2003, President Bush gave Suddam Hussein, the President of Iraq, an ultimatum: demanding the Hussein leave Iraq within a forty-eight-hour period or The United States would declare war. Suddam Hussein had been the President of Iraq since 1979 and was a major reason for the First Gulf War. In 2002, Congress and the Senate passed a law “authorizing the use of armed force against Iraq. This resolution empowered the President...

Words: 1618 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

William Orville Hickok's War During Desert Storm

...War. What is war some may ask? William Orville Hickok describes it as “terrible” and hard to explain to someone “that has never been there before”. Try to imagine standing in the desert alongside your best friends when hundreds and hundreds of rockets, called MLRS , go flying over your head and explode. The sound is so powerful that it breaks the sound barrier, which sends a chill up and back down your spine. When you hear it, it sounds like thunder that has traveled from one end of the sky to the other. Not only would these rockets launch like a space shuttle headed for the moon, but they would light up the sky like a sunrise. It humbles you to think that those roaring and deafening weapons, in a matter of seconds, had the potential to kill thousands of people. You just stand in awe, thinking to yourself, “Thank God I’m on the right side of those missiles.”. Well, Major William Orville Hickok, only 19 years old at the time, did just that as a soldier during Desert Storm. This experience was one in a lifetime for him and will forever stay with him. This is just one of the many things that made this war special, different, and one to remember for Hickok, and many like him, during Desert Storm. William Orville Hickok grew up in Dillsburg, Pennsylvania, with one older and one...

Words: 1875 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

Different Perspectives on War - Diary

...Different Perspectives on War - Diary Day 1 I was deployed to Iraq two days ago. The unit arrived yesterday, and we are now all settling in. On the way, we were all talking about, how we'll be back home in no time, everyone knew right from the beginning, that the peacekeeping units couldn't keep those Iraqis in place, but now that the peacemakers have arrived this should be over in a few months. Day 15 So, today we were patrolling among the locals, it seems like people really know, that we are the ones to decide how this is going down, the civilians look at us when we walk by in our uniforms, with guns on our backs and such. A kid pointed at the G.I. Joe in my backpack the other day, I had almost forgotten about it. Sheila gave it to me the day I left, and told me I could have it, her mother and I smiled at each other and I picked her up, and kissed her on the forehead as she said "You're my G.I. Joe, Daddy." and I decided to keep it on the outside of my backpack, so I'd always remember this. Day 40 I'm starting to get a bit worried... Yesterday I heard that some troops in another region had been contacted by the federal government of Iraq, because of some murders of Iraqi civilians. They were told that the Iraqis suspected an American unit of being the murders of these civilians. We were also told that the American government is trying to cover up this story. No one knows, if it's true, no one knows if we're even supposed to know this and if we can tell......

Words: 742 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Refugees

...We are presently living in a world full of turmoil, conflict, and confusion, continually engulfed in various power struggles and wars of all kinds. As a result of this never-ending, widespread violence and corruption, we are also living in a world of refugees. According to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: a refugee is a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country (Refugee, 2008). The current crisis of refugees around the world is overlooked by average, first world citizens every day. The topic of refugees, besides bringing up obvious issues of human rights, also involves numerous other global issues and raises countless questions. In this paper, we will discuss issues revolving around the history of refugees, refugee warehousing and its alternatives, as well as three individual case studies of current refugee crises around the world and how they connect to other global issues. Refugees were first defined and acknowledged as a legal group in the aftermath of World War II, due to the vast number of people fleeing Eastern Europe (Refugee, 2008). While it is clearly impossible to account for all of the world’s refugees, when this estimate is combined with......

Words: 4779 - Pages: 20

Premium Essay

The Unnecessary Wars

...John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "An unnecessary war," Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2003 In the full-court press for war with Iraq, the Bush administration deems Saddam Hussein reckless, ruthless, and not fully rational. Such a man, when mixed with nuclear weapons, is too unpredictable to be prevented from threatening the United States, the hawks say. But scrutiny of his past dealings with the world shows that Saddam, though cruel and calculating, is eminently deferrable. Should the United States invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein? If the United States is already at war with Iraq when this article is published, the immediate cause is likely to be Saddam's failure to comply with the new U.N. inspections regime to the Bush administration's satisfaction. But this failure is not the real reason Saddam and the united States have been on a collision course over the past year. The deeper root of the conflict is the U.S. position that Saddam must be toppled because he cannot be deterred from using weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Advocates of preventive war use numerous arguments to make their case, but their trump card is the charge that Saddam's past behavior proves he is too reckless, relentless, and aggressive to be allowed to possess WMD, especially nuclear weapons. They sometimes admit that war against Iraq might be costly, might lead to a lengthy U.S. occupation, and might complicate U.S. relations with other countries. But these concerns are eclipsed by the......

Words: 4987 - Pages: 20

Premium Essay

How Did Bill Gates Changed The World

...Microsoft was founded by Bill Gates was a very interesting time and I would’ve liked to have witnessed it. Mainly because of the change when everyone was introduced to technology, Bill Gates changed the world by making Microsoft office but more importantly, he changed the world by advancing and improving software technology and made it easier for anyone to use. Bill Gates is one of the greatest leaders in history because of his technology invention. His work has had such an impact on technology today and on our day to day life. 1990 to the Present At 2 a.m. on August 2, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. In just a matter of hours, government leaders of Kuwait sought refuge in Saudi...

Words: 1149 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Iraq & Vietnam

...Events in Iraq have prompted some people on the left to make comparisons to the American experience in the Vietnam War. These people argue that the United States has put itself into an in-extractable “quagmire” from which there is no feasible withdrawal. This type of reasoning by historical comparison is not wise because no two historical events are completely alike. In the case of Iraq and Vietnam, extreme caution should be exercised in comparing two wars so far apart in historical circumstances, geography, and time. It becomes pretty obvious that the differences between the two conflicts greatly outnumber the similarities. This is especially true in the strategic and military dimensions of the two wars. There is simply no comparison between the environment, the scale of military presence, losses incurred over time, the quality of enemy resistance, the role and scope of enemy allies, and the duration of open warfare style combat. There are, however, two political parts of the Iraq and Vietnam wars that are similar in nature: our attempts at nation-building in a foreign culture, and our trying to sustaining domestic popular support in a long and drawn out war against insurgents. Policymakers should have an understanding of the reasons for U.S. political failure in South Vietnam, as well as for the Johnson and Nixon administrations’ failure to sustain popular support for the accomplishment of U.S. military objectives in Vietnam. A repeat of those failures in Iraq could......

Words: 3524 - Pages: 15

Premium Essay

History

...the Oval Office. These two were President and Vice President for two terms and George Bush succeeded Reagan as the 41st President of the United States and carried on where Reagan left off. His presidency was limited to one term as most Americans felt that he was not strong enough or not able to function without President Reagan. The Iran-Contra war was an embarrassing scandal that almost caused Reagan his presidency. The involvement of the United States in the business of supplying weapons to the enemy of the United States basically a black market operation that was not approved by the Congress and ran by a Military Officer. The whole matter was a negotiation tactic we sell you weapons and you release hostages. Monies profited from this illegal black market scandal was funneled to the contras of Nicaragua to support their internal democracy issue and eventually allowed them to overthrow Anastasio Somoza Debayle. This whole scandal reflected poorly on the United States and President Reagan as it was a defining point in his presidency and almost cost him his office. This scandal first began in 1985 and continued until 1986 and was actually effective until the Hezbollah terrorist group got greedy and started taking more hostages in demand for more weapons. The article was first reported by the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa in a multiple set of articles and from this the Congress of the United States determined that the President of the United States of America would bore the...

Words: 1100 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Argumentative Essay On Terrorism

...It is absolutely forbidden, under any circumstances and even accidentally, to broadcast the messages of armed groups or their savage acts, to interview their members or to use material taken from international agencies with similar content. Do not seek a "scoop" at the expense of your country and its security. It is absolutely forbidden to broadcast messages, information or breaking news that may lead to the targeting of security forces, the uncovering of their positions or the identification of their areas of deployment, thereby giving terrorists a "free service" while trying to attack them or instigating attacks on them. It is absolutely forbidden to conduct live or recorded interviews, personally or via satellites, with individuals who are...

Words: 957 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

The Unseen Wound

...returning home from war have many obstacles to overcome both physical and mental. Most soldiers are not aware of a certain condition that they might have developed while deployed in a war zone. This condition is called Traumatic Brain Injury, also known as TBI. It is an injury that is not found on the outside of the body but rather internal, therefore it is called the Unseen Wound. Even though it’s unseen, TBI is real and affects a large percentage of veterans returning from war and test results show that an average of 46 percent of soldiers have TBI. Traumatic brain injury, the signature wound of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, is doubly cruel: it leaves many victims emotionally shattered and cognitively crippled. But because mild and moderate brain injuries do not show up on CT or other imaging devices, doctors and even family members are often skeptical that any real damage exists. TBI is real and affects a large percentage of veterans returning from war. “Consistent with the designation of TBI as one of the signature injuries of the war theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan, 46% of the returning veterans recruited for this project screened positive for a deployment-related TBI” (Morissette, Woodward, & Kimbrel, Meyer, Kruse, 2011, p. 346). I have deployed multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan and have sustained injuries in result of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s) and mortar attacks. Shortly after returning home, my family and close friends noticed that I was no......

Words: 3162 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

Conflict and War Are Inevitable and Sometime Necessary

...Conflict and war are inevitable and sometime necessary Of the many wondrous and beneficial qualities we as a society possess, our inclination toward war and conflict is not one of them. In fact it is one of our most destructive and damaging activities humans do. As horrifying, catastrophic and fatal as war may be, it is a necessary element for the survival for humans as a species. Before we talk about why war might be necessary, let us first discuss some of the major causes of war. The most dominant reason for war in human history is ideology, or most specifically religious ideology. From the crusades that begun with Pope Urban II speech at the Church Council at Clermont in 1095 and ended with the expulsion of the Hospital of St John from Malta by Napoleon in 1798 to the current conflict in Israel religion has been a cause for conflict. “…Hubristic identities are a possible cause of war …He defines the term ‘hubristic identities’ as ‘the aspiration for recognition’ of one’s superiority, which is not recognized by other major international actors’… Fascist and communist regime from this hypothesis, and further integrate the notion of ‘image’ – for example, monumental works in the capital city – emphasised by the leaders of such regime. Logically, such ‘hubristic identities’ require some kind of proof for both the domestic and foreign audience to strengthen their claim of their superiority. In such a scenario, winning the war is perhaps the most viable and most credible...

Words: 2077 - Pages: 9