President Bush's War On Iraq
President Bush feels the United States should launch a preemptive strike on Iraq, rather than waiting for sanctions by the United Nations.
He has received support from some political groups while facing opposition from others. Each side presents valid arguments on why they believe the U.S. should or should not go to war with Iraq.
Sanctions
In 1990, the United Nations imposed sanctions on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait. The invasion eventually lead to the Gulf War in 1991.
The U.N. agreed to lift the sanctions if Iraq would allow international inspectors to certify it had removed its weapons.
However, since 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow inspectors into the country until the sanctions are lifted, claiming the weapons no longer exist (Yacoub, 2002).
In May 2002, a new Security Council resolution dealing with U.N. sanctions was accepted by Iraq for a period of 6 months. Iraq was unhappy with the oil-for-food deal stating "these new measures exposed America's tendency toward harming Iraq (Yacoub, 2002)."
The Arab League felt Iraq made a positive step toward having the sanctions lifted.
Some critics feel the terrorist attacks on September 11 were in response to the United States involvement in the sanctions. The death rate among children in Iraq has gone up since the end of the Gulf War due to starvation, and many people blame the sanctions.
Others say the deaths are not caused sanctions, but by Saddam Hussein, who'd rather purchase weapons and indulge in luxuries for himself and top ranking officials, then buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people (Sanctions, 2001).
Why War?
President George W. Bush has suggested Iraq may be the next target in the war on terror, after accusing the Arab country of financing terrorism (International Conference, 2002).
Bush has placed Iraq on the Axis of Evil and declared Hussein "a threat to peace in the Persian Gulf (4 Questions, 2002)."
Some groups say a war with Iraq would overshadow any military actions since the Vietnam War, while others say this "could be and would be -the right war (4 Questions, 2002)." There are four questions that should be answered before the United States commits to invading Iraq.
Serious Threat
All groups agree that Iraq represents a serious threat. However, Bush must decide how big a threat Iraq actually is and when actions should be taken to eliminate this threat. There is a debate concerning how soon the United States should invade Iraq. Some "high-level Iraqi defectors say Hussein could have a crude nuclear device in hand within two years and the missile capable of delivering it at long-range within three (4 Questions, 2002)." This group is pushing for immediate intervention, while other groups are recommending patience until international inspections are allowed in Iraq to confirm the presence of these weapons.
The Arab Community
Bush must consider how the a war with Iraq would effect relationships with other Arab countries.
Most Americans feel that al-Qaida is more of a threat than Hussein, and worry that the U.S. would lose Arab cooperation if Iraq is invaded before the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is settled. However, those in favor of immediate action against Iraq point out that, despite worries about the Arab community, the U.S. will have to invade Iraq if Hussein does have nuclear weapons (4 Questions, 2002).
The Cost
All experts agreed the U.S. will win a war with Iraq, but they are concerned about the cost. Some warn a war could mean higher oil prices, sending a weakened U.S. economy into a recession, similar to the one after the Gulf War. Others are concerned about casualties due to the 400,000 well-trained soldiers of the Iraqi army (4 Questions, 2002).
Senate Hearings
In August 2002, hearings were opened by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to debate whether or not to remove Hussein from power. Experts in favor of this action testified that Iraq has recovered from the Gulf War and is in process of developing weapons of mass destruction (4 Questions, 2002). Other experts disagreed, stating it could be between one and five years before these weapons are deployed. They were concerned that if the U.S. invaded Iraq there would be higher oil prices and terrorist retaliation. These experts also debated whether the U.S. should attack before al-Qaida is neutralized and the Mideast crisis is resolved (4 Questions, 2002).
The Aftermath
The Bush Administration needs to address the question of what would happen after a war with Iraq.
Some say the United States military would have to stay in Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government can be established in Baghdad. Others argue it would be quite difficult to create a democratic...
Post War Iraq: A Paradox in the Making: Legitimacy vs. legality The regulations pertaining to the application of force in International Law has transformed greatly from the culmination of the Second World War, and again in the new circumstances confronting the world in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War. Novel establishments have been formed, old ones have withered away and an equally enormous quantity of intellectual writing has
... Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud Thus we conclude that President did indeed mislead the public even though the evidence clearly indicated that Saddam or Iraq were no immediate threats to national security. This is a matter of serious concern because if the head of the state deliberately tries to mislead
invasion and occupation of Iraq from three different perspectives. Firstly, the paper provides a historical background pertaining to the interest of energy-hungry countries such as France, America and Britain. The paper also provides a brief background of the relationship of Iraq with its neighbors and how oil has turned out to be a major source of attraction for the imperial powers. Secondly, the paper provides an in-depth perspective of
Katulis and Juul help put into perspective the tentative position of Iraq in saying that Iraq's leadership remains split on a draft version of SOFA (Katulis and Juul, online). The Iraqi cabinet must vote a two-thirds majority in favor of their support for a plan (Katulis and Juul). This may be difficult to achieve when the cabinet is divided along religious sect lines. It is, too, perhaps the first time
War Without Victory Nominally, the United States achieved victory in the first Gulf War. However, the decades of fighting in the Middle East, punctuated by the second Gulf War demonstrate that the United States was not victorious in that war. However, equally clear is the fact that Iraq was not victorious. This paper examines the politics behind the Gulf War including deterrence, diplomacy, power struggles, and military and political implications to
War on Terror & Human Rights The so-called "war on terror" -- initiated by former president George W. Bush after 9/11 -- has not succeeded in ending terrorism but it opened the door to numerous violations of human rights. A survey of verifiable, peer-reviewed sources in the literature show clearly that the Bush Administration and members of the military under Bush's command carried out human rights violations in the name of
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