U.S. Invaded Iraq in 2003 Why U.S.

¶ … U.S. INVADED IRAQ IN 2003

Why U.S. Invade Iraq 2003

invasion of Iraq has a number of forceful effects that relate to the influence of the 9/11 occurrence in the country. The then U.S. president who happened to have been President Bush pushed for the U.S. invasion of Iraq amidst the actions that Saddam had done to the U.S. In most avenues of performance, it is clear that the U.S. attack on Iraq was brought under an infuriated situation. The demand for the U.S. To invade Iraq came from the sensitive reactions and relations between Bush and the then Iraq president Hussein. Many nations in the world have engaged in war and not because of the ideological differences. Rather, the invasions and conflicts that have been experienced in many nations are related to the general balance of power. Many of the nations that have been experiencing the urgency to be part of the changing avenues have always trended towards the coincidental effects in order to try to obtain power from other nations. This is as happened in the United States of America when Bush pushed for the country to engage in war with Iraq.

The U.S. had direct many reasons and compositions at influencing the general avenues of the incursion of Iraq in 2003. Terrorism is one of the detrimental aspects in the world. Iraq had acted out of terrorism towards the U.S. In the opening and the occurrence of the 9/11 events. Because of terrorism, there have occurred varied incidences of people and property being destroyed. The increase in knowledge and skill among the people has led to devolution and evolution of destructive weapons that have been named as weapons of mass destruction in the developed nations. Besides this, there has been a shift of power in the paradigms of military exemplifications. Moreover, the existence and promotion of sovereignty and stability of peace observance are advanced within the general aspects of independence in the world. On the other hand, it has become relevant to have equitable measures of assuring the people of their immediate stability when it comes to handling of matters of intermediate relations in the world. In order to foster an equitable plan for managing the available avenues of production in the market, there is great chance and possibility of seeing many nations engage in conflicts as experienced in the first and the second world wars.

The U.S. was in a huge influence and intention to invade Iraq. The urgency over the occurrences that had invaded the nation are directed to have been related to the 9/11 U.S. invasion in Iraq. There are many reasons that have been established as the trigger mechanism towards the evolution and promotion of war in Iraq. In some situations, the mechanistic reasons that relate to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There was great urgency for the U.S. To launch attacks on the natural state of the U.S. Many nations had their immediate and long-term influence before and after the occurrence of the 9/11 attacks. For instance, the Great Britain, Germany, France, and even some of the African countries had some influence towards the occurrence of the war. In order to secure a stable avenue of maintaining its relations with the U.S. And end enmity that was building up between Iraq and the states, many nations were in support of the U.S. The issue of relevance was within the manufacture and use of the WMD that was at its peak in 2003.

Many nations were linked to the protocol and agreements of the United Nations Act. These nations had a solid agreement that encouraged them to embrace peace and hence not participate in any procedure of trying to manufacture WMD. The occurrence of the first and the Second World War had demonstrated how destructive and inhuman people could act on one another if WMD were allowed in the world. This reason drove America to have a grudge over the government that was in existence in Iraq. The occurrences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed how much there was an immediate need to influence nations not to attack one another with WMD.

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in pole position over the conspiracy that WMD were being manufactured under his authority. The influence of the UN and many other arms of governments did not have any impact on stopping the occurrences of criminal activities in the world. Some nations were not for the fact that there was any need for the U.S. To attack Iraq. The drive within the incursion was to show and demonstrate to the world that the U.S. was ready to fight against the manufacture and use of WMD in the world. What infuriated and triggered an increase in efforts towards the attack was the refusal of the government of Saddam Hussein to surrender the many weapons and other chemicals of mass destruction that had been alleged to be stocked for use. The Iraqi government under the dominion and brutal activities had attracted the interests of the other nations to provide intermediary measures.

Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein had initiated many threats and disrespect for humanity. This was possible with the nature in which the government has participated in a number of events that showed use of WMD. Therefore, the entire world was behind the acts of the U.S. If Iraq was not cooperating to get rid of the weapons as agreed in the terms and conditions of the United Nations agreement. The U.S. was acting with respect that the Iraqi government as a threat to its people and the country as a whole. Moreover, the failure of the inspection mechanisms influenced by the United Nations was another demonstration of the need for an external force to act in order to eradicate the alleged WMD in the country. As a matter of fact, it was evident that all the available evidence were leading to a realization of WMD ready for use in the country yet the government was in full denial of the act. The intention of the 2003 attacks was to destroy the government of Hussein, destroy the weapons that had been alleged, and restore human freedom and stability in the region.

When the first Gulf War in 1991 ended, the U.N. Iraq forced to remove or dispose all its biological and toxic weapons. This SC Resolution additionally commanded the reinstatement of Iraq's self-government and the functioning of permits against Iraq. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) did a number of inspections in Iraq to ensure that the situations on the agreements that took place after the first Gulf War were done. Bush was behind every move that ensured that there was equitable management of the weapons in the world as happened in Iraq. The act of inspecting weapons was thrown out of Iraq in December of 1998. When the entire aspect had no made inclusions of finding more weapons in Iraq, the U.S. stepped up their intention to invade the country.

The objective was to target and strike the military and security stations in Iraq that gave the country an innate capability and strength to produce and use WMD. The disagreement was directed at the U.N. inspectors' right of entry to a variety of 'sensitive sites' and presidential palaces. The inspectors of weapons were not allowed into Iraq until November 2002. This was when and after the U.N. SC had attained its resolution 1441.

Discussion

The U.S. invasion on Iraq in 2003 had declared and undeclared motives. Many of the motive that foreign nations took was unwarranted. The Bush administration publicly announced motives behind invasion to the American public after 9/11 attacks to win the hearts and minds of the Americans. Some of the reasons behind the invasion, which were declared publicly, included the presence of WMD, Saddam Hussein links to terrorist groups, especially Al Qaeda, and the possibility of terror groups acquiring the WMD becoming a threat to the U.S. home. The reasons also included promoting democracy in the Middle East by toppling dictatorship regimes and free the Iraqis of such regimes, promoting the war on terror after 9/11 attacks. The Bush administration had to make further considerations of the fact that it was possible to alleviate the occurrence of the 9/11 in the U.S. In order to have a major influence on the power that was related to the occurrence and ownership of weapons of mass destruction, Bush advocated for secreted intentions to invade Iraq.

However, the undeclared motives which yet to be of great debate are greatly of concern to U.S. national interests. Bush had to take varied approaches that were directed at influencing a positive perception from the members of the public. For instance, he made relations between the Iraq government and the certainties of conflicts between the two nations infuriated by Saddam Hussein. Some of the reasons included controlling a secure region of an important oil source, Avenging after 9/11 by going to pre-emptive war and to some extent Saddam's attempt to assassinate Bush in 1998. These are some of the basic reasons that Bush advocated for and intended the U.S. To take stern action against the state of Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein.

Moreover, the occurrence of the incursion was aimed at changing regime to fit the U.S. neocons, and promoting American interests in a rich country, but wars are fought for balance of power and not for idealistic reasons. In addition to that, the U.S. being the sole superpower thought that by invading Iraq, Iran and other unfriendly countries seeking nuclear weapons would stop their attempts. Other motives of the invasion were to secure the Israeli position in the Middle East.

The 2003 incursion in Iraq occurred between mid March and late April. This started a reign of war and fighting that resulted in what was called the Iraq war. The war was dubbed procedure of Iraqi Freedom from the U.S. The attack was involved with 21 days of immense war operations. The war comprised a combination of force of multitudes from the United Kingdom, United States, Poland, and Australia. These soldiers attacked Iraq and toppled the Ba'athist government that Saddam Hussein controlled. The incursion segment was comprised primarily of a conventionally combated war that ended with the detonation of Baghdad, the Iraq capital, by American soldiers (Allin, 2007, p. 125).

A number of countries took part with soldiers during the initial stages of the war that took place in March and April 2003. Four countries participated. They included the U.S. (148,000 soldiers), United Kingdom (45,000 soldiers), Australia (2,000 soldiers), and Poland (194 soldiers). Thirty-six other countries were composed in its consequences. In grounding for the incursion, 100,000 U.S. multitudes were put together in Kuwait. The U.S. provided the many of the attacking forces, although they received assistance from Kurdish irregulars who were dwelling in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Former chief anti-terrorism consultant on the UNSC had faith that Bush worked in his office with a determined strategy to attack Iraq. Bush was believed to be harboring influential sentiments most of which had not been proven. Many other Americans have a concern over what took place on 11 September 2001 attacks. This act had a specified role that played in structuring the U.S. strategic plans (Freedman, L. (2008), p. 78). Moreover, the event had an influence on the rise of the independence schedule. In accordance to Blair, one of the main triggers was the failure of Iraq to get rid of the alleged nuclear weapons in its possession. The Iraq government under Saddam Hussein had not taken even a single chance to get rid of the dangerous nuclear weapons. The CIA came up with a report in 2005 stating that there were not even one nuclear weapon and many other WMD had been identified in Iraq (Allin, 2007, p. 124).

In a 2003 CBS poll, 64% of Americans had greed for the military action against Iraq. Bush was behind the sentiments of influence. Nonetheless, 63% said that Bush should find an ambassadorial remedy other than involving in war. Sixty-two percent of people believed that the dangers of terrorism to the U.S. would create a further war and fights between the two nations. The attack on Iraq was muscularly contrasting by some long serving U.S. allies (Hughes, G. (2010, p. 160). These included France, and Germany and other economically stable developed countries. The leaders saw the absence of WMD in Iraq and any attack was not justifiable in the circumstance of UNMOVIC's 12 February 2003 report. Four weeks before the attack, many world protests were reported to be against the attack on Iraq (Mumford, 2010, p. 178).

The assault was led by an attack through the air on the Presidential Palace in Baghdad. This took place on 19 March 2003 (Keaney & Eliot 1993, p. 87). After this, the following were a collection of forces opened an attack in Basra Province from their collection points near the border of Iraqi and Kuwaiti. Even when the Special Forces started an ambitious attack from the Persian Gulf to safe Basra and the nearby petroleum fields, the core attack army approached the southern Iraq, occupied the place, and involved in the Battle of Nasiriyah on 23 March. Many strong air strikes over the country in rebellion to Iraqi authority and power threw the defensive army into confusion and secured an effective battle. The 173rd the Airborne Brigade was dropped from the air close Kirkukin late March. This is the region where they combined forces with Kurdish fought several actions alongside the Iraqi army to safe the northern section of Iraq (Mumford, 2010, p.178).

In 2002, Bush frequently cautioned of military action over Iraq if examinations on its nuclear engagements were not satisfactory. While seeking some understanding, Iraq unwillingly approved two new scrutinies in late 2002 (Allin, 2007, p.129).

On February 2002, the CIA requested the services of the former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to examine the information that Iraq was affording to buy extra yellowcake from Niger. Wilson revisited and acknowledged the CIA that claims of yellowcake transported to Iraq were "unequivocally wrong." The Bush management although proceeded to assert Iraq's endeavors to get extra yellowcake were a good reason for military achievement, most outstandingly in the January 2003, the Union Address state, over which President Bush affirmed that Iraq had required uranium, stating British cleverness basses.

After 9/11 attacks, the U.S. foreign policy shifted towards unilateral actions to demonstrate the U.S. hegemony using its military power to fight wars abroad and to change regimes and fight against terrorism. Bush had an immediate concern over the stability of Iraq and its alleged plans to host many weapons of mass destruction. It appeared that the immediate country that was focused to have alleviated the 9/11 attacks was the government of Iraq under the dominance of Saddam Hussein. Iraq was on the axis of evil on the U.S. agenda. The war against Iraq violated the UN Security Council resolution, and this clearly demonstrates that when great powers such as the U.S. searches for its national interests and violates international laws for its benefits. In fact, some nations were not for the intent that had been taken by Bush and his administration. Further sentiments of disapproval were advocated by the then UN secretary and urgent member of the UN agreements. It was not necessary for the government of the U.S. To make judgments over the attacks of Iraq.

The U.S. had the intentions but only was searching for reasons to win the public voice and the international community support. To justify their case for war, the Bush administration officials led the Intelligence Community (IC) to chase and to promote the U.S. policy then used the public to sell the threat posed by Saddam Hussein WMD and link with Al-Qaeda terrorist groups by promoting preemptive and preventive war. . Hence, intelligence was used as a tool of policy rather than a guide to inform policy.

As of September 2002, the Bush government stated that struggles by Iraq to obtain explosive aluminum tubes that were illegal within the UN assessment strategy. They sought to have a concealed struggle to formulate centrifuges to develop uranium for nuclear bombs. The U.S. Department of Energy opposed the analysis. The analysis was deemed of importance because of DOE's knowledge in the nuclear weapons strategy. The DOE and INR claimed that they were of poor suitability for centrifuges. Moreover, while it was possible technically under further alteration, predictable military use was more reasonable. A description unconfined by the ISIS claimed in 2002 that it was not possible that the tubes were to be used to increase the strength of Uranium (Erika de 2004, p. 8).

A struggle by the DOE to alter this feature in the commentary made for Secretary of State's UN look was rejected by the management. Nonetheless, Powell, in his communication to the UNSC before the war started, mentioned the aluminum tubes, saying that while specialists did not agree at all with the program. Furthermore, the stipulation of the tubes was strangely tight. Powell stated later that he had given inaccurate information on Iraqi weaponry. Moreover, the intelligence that gave him the information was in certain instances, "deliberately misleading."

The CIA had talked with the foreign minister of Iraq, Naji Sabri, in whom the French government paid him to act as an agent. Sabri told them that Saddam had concealed poison gas within Sunni tribesmen. He had objectives for a nuclear agenda although it lacked activity. According to Sidney Blumenthal, George Tenet informed Bush that Iraq had not hidden WMD. Bush did not agree with Hussein's central management of intelligence although two senior CIA officers had approved it. This information did not come to the hands of the Congress or CIA managers who were on with the activity of determining if Hussein had WMD.

Some reports claimed from the German intelligence service gave confirmation to the (UNSC) that Iraq possessed an active biological weapons installation. Bush was not happy about such instances in the country. The traitor confessed to journalists who were working for The Guardian newspaper that he had told lies to the Bundesnachrichtendienst as a way of strengthening the case that was against Saddam Hussein. He wanted Hussein to be removed from power.

In 1991, both the George Bush and the Clinton government had faith that the consolidation of the of economic sanctions, military repression and regions without flights found in the northern and southern Iraq will result in military overthrow or a fortress rebellion by associates of Saddam's personal Baath regime. This was not the UN's strategy, but Washington's personal one-sided endeavor to modify the government in Baghdad.

During the first Bush and Clinton administrations, the main strategy was to support a coup or a palace revolution, and not to undertake any active American involvement to remove the Baath regime. After the 1991 Gulf War, President Bush signed a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to topple Saddam. A 1998 law was passed by the Congress, which President Clinton signed. This law gave authority of close to $97 million in military assistance to Iraqi opposition forces. Through this, they could topple the leadership and government headed by Saddam Hussein and hence gives freedom to the emergence and stability of the country's independence. The state policies in the U.S. Of America appeared to change during this time as directed to President George Bush. There was a considerable change in U.S. policy toward Iraq when George W. When Bush took office in 2001, there was a lot of change that was aimed at transforming the way in which the U.S. Of America viewed and considered the interests of Iraq (Allin, 2007, p.131).

The backbone of the American economy was deemed to exist in what was called freedom of action as based on the American economy. The country only involved institutions like the United Nations to handle matters of its internal concern in the region. Moreover, this occurred when Washington was accorded the respect to support its policies.

In October 2001, the U.S. attacked Afghanistan. This attack led to the first creation of the fight on terrorism. After one year, there was a passage by the congress that force be used in the U.S. attack on Iraq. This declaration authorized the President to affirm war with no getting U.N. SC approval. Therefore, as of October 2002 the U.S. had one voice when it came to matters of foreign policy. The and strength of the expansionist had developed a framework of working out and establishing a common ground of performance with the Bush administration (Malone 2004, p. 78).

From this scenario, the President had all the reasons to invade Iraq with the aid of the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA together with his advisors who were in the White House. Nonetheless, this apparent unilateralism did not have a meaning that Washington would avoid doing from trying to get a receipt from the U.N. For its individual foreign matters as demonstrated by the short-lived of U.N. SC Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002. As of November, the U.N, the inspector Hans Blix, informed the SC that Iraq had not made a full account for its stores of chemical and biological weaponry. Colin Powell made a presentation on February 5, 2003 confirming the continuation of WMD in Iraq for the U.N. SC; the U.S. had made thousand deployments of soldiers to the Gulf section. In January 2003, Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, had symbolized operation orders for 62,000 U.S. troops to the place, together with the 43,000 who were in place by that time.

President Bush gave out a provocation on March 17, challenging that Saddam Hussein together with two of his sons leave Iraq in a period of not more than 48 hours. On March 20, partnership forces invaded Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

An indispensable hypothesis in action theory is that the players are real actors. Taking into consideration the conclusion of the disagreement -- the U.S. assaulted Iraq, and the reign of Saddam Hussein stopped -- this supposition can be taken on the eve of being a problem in the Iraqi situation. The tyrant himself was imprisoned on December 13, thrashing in a cellar south of Tikrit and was afterwards executed (Simon, 2007).

The supposition of based on reason performance means that every player has a dependable set of positions (values or payoffs) above all substantially likely outcomes and that he or she resolves for the scheme that equitably serve these intentions. Significantly, however, the idea of consistency does not involve that all the participants divide an ordinary assessment system. This means that each player goes after his or her value system time after time.

In order to recognize Saddam Hussein's performance, we have to comprehend his ambitions. According to realist theory, the main attention of a state of the disordered system is a refuge. When survival is assured, nations sharing the same ideas seek such other intentions as self-possession, profit, and authority. The initial anxiety of states is not to make the most of authority but to uphold their states in the system. Subsequent to the realists, the first purpose of Iraq's foreign policy rests in maintaining a major influence in the Middle East.

We can then take for granted that Saddam Hussein required Iraq to be the most overriding force in the section. A learning of the middle workings and manners of Saddam's Regime, specially made by the U.S. Joint Forces Command, avow this postulation. It appears the Iraqi state's actions to some extent were strong-minded by the pronouncements made by a sole man. In accordance with the CIA description freed in September 2004, Saddam Hussein subjugated the Iraqi regime that its premeditated objective was his unaccompanied.

When the first Gulf War ended, the SC put into practice United Nations resolution 687 that, in adding up to being a cease-fire concord, was intended to reinstate 'international peace and security' in the region. The essential elements of this declaration were Paragraph 8, which required Iraq to recognize the annihilation, taking away, or reproduction of harmlessness under worldwide management of all WMD. The evidence cleared that Saddam Hussein infatuated WMD and used them alongside both external enemies (Iran) and his populace. Besides, his government now faced a quandary. The declaration gave the U.S. And its supporters with the ability to use force in Iraq. The United Nations declaration 687 was partly a replication of its decree 678. This showed that if it were demonstrated that Iraq had WMD, Saddam would menace a new western interference (Hughes, G. (2010, p.156).

Meanwhile, if it were made obvious that Saddam had no chemical or biological weapons, then he would lose one of his key instruments of imposing fear among his own inhabitants and Iraq's neighbors. This could reduce Iraq's location as the chief strength in the region. Saddam's sensible alternative could then be to create uncertainty or ambiguity as to likely or not he had these armaments. Without evidence of Iraq possessing WMD, it seemed improbable that the West would intercede. Lack of verification of Iraq not having the WMD would stir rebellions and Iraq's neighbors as compartments. Therefore, it would appear realistic for Saddam Hussein to follow the option of vagueness. This section of strategy obeys what is known as signalling in game theory, informative, hiding and depicting the information as concerns one's purpose and potentials. The universal standard is that you want to let go your information with a good selection.

The planned state of affairs in March 2003 ended with the Iraq positioning firm and the U.S. And its friends carrying out their danger of invading (Kahl, 2008, p.151). We can illustrate an equivalent to the preceding war in the Gulf. Many 'experts' commentary on the Persian Gulf divergence in late 1990 envisaged that Saddam Hussein would backside 'because he is rational,' thus probably fading to identify that Saddam's value system was unlike from the one considered by most Western governments and Western experts. To satisfactorily version for the eruption of war, we must return to the U.N. declaration 1441 and comprise the feature of incomplete information when modeling the eruption of the disagreement. In meticulous, two features of the information measurement are relevant:

First, as exemplified, Saddam Hussein had incentives to show the ambiguity concerning the query whether or not he owned WMD. Certainly, this vagueness would put Iraq's pathway of choice in disagreement with the foreign policy of post-9/11USA. The U.S. could not recognize doubt on this matter. There is also another way in which Saddam's apparently unreasonable behavior could be given in details.

Deterrence theory is based ahead of the supposition that possible enemies are based on reason. If the expenses and/or dangers of deciding war appear insufficiently high, the adversary will refuse this option, and prevention holds. Nevertheless, this logic cannot be expected to counteract an unreasonable opponent, who could opt for conflict even if losses are likely to prevail over gains. With the assumption of illogicality on its side, a weaker performer can frighten a stronger actor. A state can benefit from depicting itself as mad because other states will then tend to abstain from intervening in its matters.

Moreover, in the happening of an altercation, ludicrousness can pay compensation in military-power deficit. Being perceived as ridiculous can be valuable. Iraq could perhaps be attempting to make the U.S. And its surrounding countries suppose that it was both competent and intending to use WMD if invaded. If persuaded that Saddam was not tricking, the U.S. would step down their plans. It is completely probable that both these issues can help give details of Iraqi performance. Vagueness, it is probable, was Iraq's most maneuver path to protecting its decision in the region. Saddam's aim to fright the neighbors from conflicting with his decisions was seen as a lunatic of negative necessity.

Second, Iraq underestimated Washington's willingness and capabilities to go to war. To be efficacious, a threat must have three characteristics. First, the threat must be relevant; that is, the target must have some freedom of action to make it possible to avoid the execution of the threat. One can be tempted to call the U.S. strategy an unconditional commitment rather than a threat with the intention to take a given course of action regardless of what the other side chooses to do (Diamond, 2004, p.36).

Moreover, anybody could also perceive at it as a conditional commitment that transformed and became unconditional only when it reached at a point of no return. After the U.S. had taken many of military employees to the region, they clearly showed that they were ready to engage in attack operations. This was also important as a way of restoring credibility with friends and possible anti-Saddam agencies in the region. Nothing was more important than preparing with no mistakes towards a massive military attack that would denote a start of new things in Iraq.

The avenue provided a way of naming the U.S. point of returning to nowhere. Second, the threat was supposed to be done with severity that it will leave a legacy in the region, so that the target favors to respect rather than encounter the penalty. Third, the threat must be believable. In other words, the target must be lead to believe that the threat will be carried out if compliance is not forthcoming. As a rule, the threatened must show that he will act, not that he may act, if the threat fails (Kahl, 2008, p.151).

The Iraq-Kuwait war of August 2, 1990- February 28, 1991 was commonly known as the Persian Gulf War or simply Gulf War. This was a war waged by the United Nations and coalition forces mandated it from thirty-four (34) countries (Malone 2004, p. 78). It was a war led by United Kingdom and U.S. Of America (USA) (both are among the five permanent members), against Iraq for attacking Kuwait in the midnight unaware. The former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein branded this was a termed it as the mother of all battles. It was a military response and its operational name was operation desert storm. The war started when Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, which led to international condemnation that forced the UNSC member states bring economic sanctions immediately the war started (Erika de Wet 2004, p. 67).

US of America being a member of the SC were the first to deploy its forces. The then U.S. President Bush ordered its forces to Saudi Arabia six months after the war had begun (Lindsay, 2011, p.765). He then urged other nations both members and non-members of the United SC to send their forces to the country. The UNSC had to compel the fifteen members to send the troops and war machinery against Iraq. Many nations joined the U.S. troops but the majority of the military forces were from the U.S. The leading contributors were the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in that order after the U.S. Saudi Arabia contributed about $60 billion to be used in the war by the military forces and to ensure the war becomes successful (Bellin, 2008, p.116).

With the powers the SC is vested with, they used too much force leading to high tension in Kuwait. Before the ceasefire in February 1991, Iraq was financially unstable and bankrupt. Most of it debt was owed to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iraq tried to pressurize both countries to forgive the debt, but they completely refused and they wanted to further their sanction in the country (Mumford, 2010, p.178). The country further accused Kuwait and other Middle East countries of exceeding and maintaining its OPEC quotas that drove the oil prices up; hence worsening the Iraqi economy. The war was severe because the collapse in the oil prices had a catastrophic effect in the economy of Iraq because, like many other countries in the world, oil determines the economic growth of a country (Mumford, 2010, p.178).

The Iraqi government described the economic warfare that was seen as organized by the U.S. By slant drilling into the Iraq's oil fields of Rumaila. The Iraqi government blamed the UNSC of using its forceful orders to fight and to control the Iraq-U.S. war. Though the UNSC had, the powers to stop any war occurring, Iraq government faulted the SC for using their powers to promote other nation's interests. Much blame was in America because they were not only trying to stop the war between Iraq and Kuwait, but they were also trying to suppress Saddam Hussein leadership. Many claim that, Saddam Hussein was against all the policies and trading with U.S. Of America and it was time for America to revenge (Lindsay, 2011, p. 765). This is seen because U.S. troops were the first ones to be sent to Iraq. President Bush then convinced other member countries to send both their land and air forces. America had earlier claimed that, Iraq was in the process of manufacturing dangerous missiles and it convince the UNSC committed to act against Iraq way back before the Iraq-Kuwait war started (Fawcett, 201334).

Iraq was not fighting Kuwait for the sake of it, but it wanted to claim the territory it had been forcefully taken from Kuwait (Simon, 2008, p.75). Iraq wanted Kuwait to remain its territory as it had been since 1932 when it gained independence and sovereignty from the United Kingdom. The UNSC did not listen to the root cause of the problem leading to economic deterioration of Iraq. The British government created Kuwait after World War I; and declares it as a British protectorate and invention. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, its capital city irritated the UNSC because Iraq took advantage of Kuwait by invading them unaware. At the time, Kuwait had no forces on alert; hence was got unaware (Erika de Wet 2004, p. 67).

The Iraqi forces infiltrated into Kuwait at midnight from the South and farther to the west of Kuwait city. Iraq being a threat to the people of Kuwait, the United Nation SC had to intervene by using its powers to stop this war. The SC mandate was to prevent any other war from occurring because this was their responsibility and it was within their powers. The Kuwait forces had no strong air force aircraft therefore; they failed to respond to attack and counter the invading forces from Iraq. As a result, the UNSC had to make a resolution to safe Kuwait, and troops were ordered to attack Iraq because this was seen as it could cause another world war. The UNSC was fearful of the fact that, Iraq could be having destructive weapons such as missiles and this was the reason as to why they had to use force against them. It was meant to suppress any other war and to help Kuwait who had no arms and forces to fight back. Though the UNSC used more force to suppress Iraq, it was worth because many people in Kuwait could have been killed and property destroyed.

The UNSC has powers to investigate and to take action against any country trying to interfere with international peace and security. Any situation that may cause friction is risky and could result in conflicts and misunderstanding if they were not dealt with in advance. The council usually recommends appropriate methods and processes of adjustment if the action taken would prejudice peace and security of other countries (Brzezinski, 2009, p.149).

The force used by the UNSC was questioned, especially the air attacks, which included both cruise missiles and warplanes, led to the deaths of more than 1000 civilians at the initial stages of the war led by U.S. troop a member of the UNSC (Diamond, 2004, p.40). This was within a period of 24 hours and Baghdad was the most targeted areas. This was because the city was believed to be the seat of the president Saddam Hussein and the military base of Iraqi forces. They believed all the dangerous weapons might be there and they wanted to destroy because it was putting the world nations at risk of experiencing another world war (Ikenberry, 2002, p.52).

The major casualties were thousands of innocent civilians due to the bombing from the air before the ground war (Diamond, 2004, p.38). The stealth planes bombed a bunker in Amirya causing deaths of 200-500 people who were taking refuge at the time of the incident. The mutilated bodies and the scene of the incident was broadcasted subsequently which led to controversy on whether the Iraqi military operations had been destroyed or not. The war according to the investigation by Beth Osborne Daponte shows that, 3500 people were civilian fatalities and more than 100000 suffered from the effects of bombing and cruelty of the UN Security forces (Ikenberry, 2002, p.48).

By 26 and 27 February 1991, some Iraqi forces left Kuwait with more than 1400 vehicles. They were monitored and assisted in communication and coordination to the air operations DDM-8 Center in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh (Bellin, 2008, p.116). The soldiers and the vehicles were attacked on their way back by the UNSC troops. This led to the 60-kilometer highway stretch filled with debris and the journalist who reported the incident described highway of death as it. This was a tragedy to the Iraqi soldier because most of them were killed and their machinery destroyed including vehicles and other powerful war gadgets. This made the Iraqis to lose hope and lost heart because of this attack and destruction of property worth billions of money (Ornstein & Mann, 2006, p.70).