¶ … invading Iraq. The writer argues that an invasion at this time is not necessary or prudent when there are so many bigger threats facing the U.S. The writer discusses why Iraq is not a threat at this time and why an invasion would be inappropriate. There were seven sources used to complete this paper.
For more than a decade the nation of Iraq has been at odds with the U.S. Saddam Hussein, who is the leader of Iraq, has alternately allowed then refused weapons inspections throughout the last decade, even though he had agreed to them following the Desert Storm War of 1991. More recently, the President of the United States has focused attention on a possible invasion of Iraq based on the current war against terrorism that the U.S. launched following the WTC attack of 9-11. President Bush has invested many hours and speeches in an effort to convince the world that an invasion on Iraq is a warranted and logical next step in the effort to stomp out terrorism. While Americans stand strongly behind the hunt for Osman Bin Ladin and members of his Alqeda terrorist group, they are not as one sided when it comes to an invasion of Iraq. Given the recent warnings by government officials about possible pending attacks on the U.S. By Bin Ladin, it makes no sense to take any attention, funds, or manpower away from that cause, to invaded Iraq, which at present poses no threat to the security of this nation.
WHAT THE NATION IS SAYING
Recent polls have indicated that the majority of the U.S. residents still support the war on terrorism when it comes to seeking out Bin Ladin and his terrorists and doing whatever it takes to stop them in their tracks, however the support quickly nosedives when it comes to a possible invasion or attack on the country of Iraq (Wallace, 2002). Recently the American public has made it clear to President Bush that it wants solid reasons for any planned attack before an attack is ordered (Wallace, 2002). In addition the polls show that the public wants any action against Iraq to be approved first by the United States Congress and also to have support through U.S. allies for the invasion. Polls also indicated that only one-third of American citizens will consider supporting an invasion if he chooses to do so without taking it through congress and getting ally support first. Further studies indicate that three out of four Americans believe the president should seek congressional sanctions against Iraq and see if they resolve the problems before ordering anything so drastic as an invasion (Wallace, 2002).
REASONS NOT TO INVADE
There are several reasons that an invasion of Iraq at this time would be inappropriate. One of the most obvious reasons is the fact that Iraq does not pose an immediate threat to the safety of the United States (Afraid, 2002).
One can observe the feelings of Iraq's neighbors to determine how much of a threat it has become. There are six nations surrounding the country of Iraq. They are directly adjacent to the nation yet, they do not seem to fear the nation nor are they making plans to do many thing in a militaristic vein against Iraq (Afraid, 2002). The United States is much further away than the six neighboring nations are. This is one of the evidences that Iraq does not pose an immediate threat to the U.S.(Afraid, 2002).
During the time of Desert Storm the U.S. had no trouble-locating allies to stand by its side during an invasion. Fast-forward to today and the U.S. is struggling to put together a coalition in support of another invasion (Calls, 2002).
An invasion should only occur when there is evidence of immediate danger. The president thus far has failed to prove such a danger exists; in fact the quest to find a reason has turned up more vagueness than ever before (Diamond, 2002).
Regardless of how hard the president...
[…] 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
It is without a shred of uncertainty that Iraq has the second largest reserves of oil in the entire world. It is also extremely clear that one of the motivations for the invasion and occupation of Iraq had been to control those oil reserves. On the other hand, at the present, in the post-war stage in Iraq, it is absolutely necessary that United States of America and its coalition partners
This includes putting in place international legal systems, dispute resolution mechanisms as well as cooperative arrangements.14 The call this approach social peace-building or structural peace-building. Such peace-building involves "creating structures -- systems of behavior, institutions, concerted actions -- that support the embodiment or implementation of a peace culture."15 This is what the author's call multi-track diplomacy. It involves individuals who are not normally involved in the peace process, particularly business
war on Iraq, and considers whether U.S. policy towards Iraq can prevail, through an analysis of eight facets of this policy: international trade; weapons of mass destruction; democratization; the war against tyranny vs. The grab for oil; the "shock and awe" tactics used at the beginning of the war; the U.S. occupation vs. liberation; whether the new government of Iraq will be Iraqi run or whether Iraq will become
(MACV Dir 381-41) This document is one of the first confidential memorandums associated with the Phoenix Program, which details in 1967 the mostly U.S. involvement in counterinsurgency intelligence and activities and discusses the future training and development of South Vietnam forces to serve the same function, that had been supported by the U.S. In civilian (mostly CIA) and military roles. The document stresses that the U.S. role is to
Strike before being struck is the rallying cry of this form of foreign policy and Kaplan and Kristol would be in complete agreement. Secondly, the alleged harboring of the Al-Quaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for the 9/11 bombings, provided an additional justification which was also in line with the preemptive argument offered by Kaplan and Kristol. The Al-Quaeda were, according to the thinking of these two writers and the
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now