An Inevitable War: Iraq [pic]
“We may have had enough troops to win the war-but not nearly enough to win the peace.” (Philip Carter, 2003, p. 82) There is much debate going on in the U.S. about the war in Iraq. Some people argue that the U.S is fighting a war that it should never have started; others argue U.S. intervention on Iraq has created a war with no end and we should come home immediately. However, I strongly believe that the war in Iraq was an inevitable, justified war and that, from a Liberal point of view, the US should remain in Iraq until we have helped the Iraqis establish a strong government that represents and protects all the people. The war was inevitable because the U.S. and Iraq have shared a very problematic history, mainly because of the different ideals that each believe in. For example, America believes that democracy is the ideal type of government because it efficiently protects and enforces the rights of people, while Iraq’s government was totalitarian. It is due to these differences that the two countries have fundamental disagreements. When there is so much tension between two states, any little spark can ignite a conflict or even a war. The spark that first ignited a conflict between the U.S. and Iraq was Hussein’s search for power. (Imperial Overstretch) On August 2, 1990, Iraq tried to invade Kuwait in an attempt to control most of the oil in the Middle East. The U.S. response to Iraq’s invasion was operation Dessert Storm, an American attack that quickly forced Iraqi troops to withdraw from Kuwait. America’s intentions behind Operation Dessert Storm were to stop Hussein from getting more powerful, because if Iraq became more rich and powerful it could be able to acquire weapons of mass destruction, which would threaten our security. A justification for the present conflict is Iraq’s reaction to our peaceful efforts to prevent them from becoming a threat to the world. For the past decade, the U.S. has pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraq regime without war. In 1991, Iraq pledged to reveal and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War. However, Iraq’s actions never appeared to be truthful or honest. More than a dozen resolutions have been passed in the United Nations Council but the Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. Over the years U.N. weapons inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. The U.S. has devoted 12 years of diplomacy to this issue but peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime failed many times, “because we are not dealing with peaceful men.” (George W. Bush, 2003, p. 22) A further reason the Iraq war is justified is the September 11, 2001 attack on the U.S. The Bush administration made it very clear that it would act unilaterally and preemptively if its security was threaten. September 11 was the perfect opportunity for the U.S. to knock Hussein off his throne. The failure to remove Saddam would mean that, despite the terrorist attack, we as a nation were unwilling to shoulder the responsibilities of world leadership, even to protect ourselves. (Security Dilemma) I strongly support the decision of President George W. Bush to attack Iraq because, for world security purposes, America could not let Iraq become a threat. Iraq had not kept its promise of destroying all its weapons of mass destruction and had not respected American’s peaceful efforts to avoid war, and if America turned away from the Iraq challenge it would not be seen as a world leader. Therefore, my policy on the war in Iraq is that the war was fully justified and that the U.S. should keep fighting and work to establish a federalist democratic government in Iraq before we pull out. America must continue fighting in Iraq because ever since the Hussein regime ended the lives of Iraqis have been improving. Iraqis are...
Dudley, William. (2004) Iraq: Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document