[…] With the U.S. now mired in a Mesopotamian morass because of what is described as a 'unilateralist' foreign policy, the UN's multilateralist approach is gaining unearned prestige and unwarranted credibility" (Grigg, 2006). While the UN might not have masterminded the war, they certainly participated in the events that led up to the invasion, so they did play an important role in arguments for the invasion, and now they are benefiting, which does not seem right, somehow. Therefore, no matter how long we remain in Iraq due to human rights issues, the country may dissolve into anarchy when we leave, making our purpose their largely questionable.
Many members of NATO, including France, Germany, and Belgium opposed the war, and they protested sending any NATO troops into Iraq for any cause. Another writer notes, in July during a trip to Washington, Robertson told U.S. lawmakers that NATO would not go beyond providing logistical support for the Polish-led force in Iraq" (Dettmer, 2003). The Polish forces were peacekeepers sent in to assist British and American forces. While NATO seems to have healed over the war, there is still distrust in those that opposed the war, and that distrust has lead to them distancing themselves from Washington D.C. And the Bush administration. It will probably take more time for them to build up any trust in the United States again.
The Human Rights Argument
As the war dragged on and no one found WMD, human rights became the focus of the administration as a reason to continue the war. Miller states, "In response to the administration's failure to uncover WMD, Bush increasingly turned to the rescue rationale. For that reason, and because many of the war's defenders also embraced rescue as the strongest basis for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it invites ethical scrutiny" (Miller, 2008). That is one of the justifications for the ongoing war, as well. The administration argued that the Iraqi people were not ready to govern themselves or defend themselves from opposing forces, and "liberating" them from their despotic leader, Saddam Hussein, became the goal of the invasion. The administration also believed that leaving Iraq could lead to civil war in the country. Writer Grigg continues, "Defenders of the administration's policy maintain that 'cutting and running' now would fatally undermine our nation's prestige, and trigger a civil war in Iraq. But according to Israeli strategist and military historian Martin van Creveld, one of the ...
The Bottom Line
In the end, there were several reasons devised to explain just why the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and continues its operations there. However, most experts feel those reasons have not been justified. Miller notes, "But for empirical and moral reasons, the Iraq war lacks a just cause. There is not, nor was there at the time, sufficient evidence to say that the United States was in danger from Iraq" (Miller, 2008). Another set of writers note, "What is particularly disturbing about the Iraq War is how long the Bush Administration stuck to details from the initial mythology (Weapons of Mass Destruction, pre-war Iraqi links to al-Qaeda) long after news organizations had carried substantial refutations of those claims" (Harmon & Muenchen, 2009). They speculate the administration might have actually begun to believe their own spin on the war, and believe it was true, even when it had been proven completely inaccurate. Even high-ranking military leaders believe the war was a mistake. Another writer states, "Lieutenant General William Odom (Ret.) describes the war as 'the greatest strategic disaster in our history' -- not in terms of its present body count, but rather because of its radiating consequences for the region and the world" (Grigg, 2006). The war showed the aggressive and imperialistic side of the United States, something the country had managed to hide for many years, and it made many foreign powers feel we had overstepped our bounds and we were acting like militaristic bullies.
Dettmer, J. (2003). NATO suffering from identity crisis. Retrieved 7 May 2010 from the FindArticles.com Web site: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2003_Sept_16/ai_107543546/.
Editors. (2004). The invasion of Iraq. Retrieved 7 May 2010 from the Frontline Web site:
Grigg, W.N. (2006, January 9). Bring 'em home! The New American, 22, 12+.
Harmon, M., & Muenchen, R. (2009). Semantic framing in the build-up to the Iraq War. ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, 66(1), 12+.
Lobe, J. (2009). Why did the U.S. invade Iraq? Retrieved 7 May 2010 from the IPSnews.net Web site: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41643.
Miller, R.B. (2008). Justifications of the Iraq War examined. Ethics…
Therefore, no matter how long we remain in Iraq due to human rights issues, the country may dissolve into anarchy when we leave, making our purpose their largely questionable.
The documents we provide are to be used as a sample, template, outline, guideline in helping you write your own paper, not to be used for academic credit. All users must abide by our "Student Honor Code" or you will be restricted access to our website.
U.S. War against Iraq 'The Big Lie': Larry Mosqueda's Historical Analysis of U.S. Imperialism and Its Significance with the U.S.-Iraq War (Gulf War II) Media reports about the current state of the U.S.-Iraq War, also called Gulf War II, illustrates how the war is premeditated and triggered by the bombing of the World Trade Center in 2001. The Bush Administration, generally perceived as the whole country of United States, decided to end
A long passage is quoted here by way of showing what all these various writers are concerned about: (Kane, 2003)May 2002 brought the odd spectacle of ex-President Jimmy Carter standing shoulder to shoulder in Havana with one of the U.S. government's oldest enemies, Cuban president Fidel Castro. Carter, on a mission to convey a message of friendship to the Cuban people and to seek some common ground between Cuba
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
post war policies that the U.S. And the world have adopted towards Iraq. It has 8 sources. The war in Iraq and the protests of people around the world has given a clear signal to the American government and policy makers that the world has become a different place. That every attempt of American expansionism and corporate imperialism will be opposed, the unilateral policies of United States has to change
U.S. Approach to Terrorism U.S Approach to Terrorism Post 2001 The incidence of September 11, 2001 led to an anti-terrorism campaign by the government of U.S. And was called the war or terror. Since 2001, U.S. government has taken several steps to maintain security and counter terrorism by implementing certain strategies at national and international level. These approaches and steps, whether useful or not have been discussed in this paper. President Bush's Justifications
U.S. Invasion into Iraq: After the 911 terror attacks, the Bush Administration launched the war on terrorism in attempts to deal with the threats of global terrorism and enhance homeland security. The war on terrorism was characterized by a successful American military campaign to destroy Afghanistan's Taliban regime and interrupt the operations of the Al Qaeda terrorist network. In the aftermath of this successful mission, the United States military invaded Iraq