NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
The Iraq Conflict With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US inherited new political and economic opportunities as the worlds last superpower. Hence, public anxiety about the potential threat of world nuclear war has abated, but the US has inexorably been drawn into conflicts that threaten the long-term stability of regions strategic to its own interests. Thus, American forces led an international effort to repulse Iraq's occupation of Kuwait in 1991, and Nato's campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999. After the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001, a US-led coalition overthrew the Taliban government in Afghanistan and sought to destroy al-Qaida infrastructure in that country. Mr. Bush declared a more robust policy of military action abroad, committing the US to pre-emptive strikes to forestall future terrorist attacks.
According to this policy, the US, with support from the UK and the rest of coalition, used the full potential of its armed forces towards the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, in March 2003, accusing him of harboring biological and chemical weapons and of assisting al-Qaida. Sizeable US forces remain in Afghanistan and Iraq, while covert action has been taken against al-Qaida in other countries, such as Yemen. Spurred by the war on terror, defense expenditure is being boosted significantly under the Bush administration, in particular extensive missile defense programs to protect the US from potential missile or air carrier attacks attempted by the rogue states. The USs position as the undisputed superpower has, however, raised tensions with some long-standing allies.
Political intercourse with France, Germany, Canada, Mexico and Chile, has been severely tensioned by Mr. Bush's ultimate decision to assault Iraq neglecting the decision of the UN Security Council and numerous UN recommendations. Russia also opposed the war, and by doing this threatened recent political warming in relations with the US. In general, US foreign policy under Mr.
Bush has raised concerns in foreign capitals of a new era of unilateralism in Washingtons dealings with third world countries and rogue states. From the very beginning of its initiation, the war was characterized with the dotted strikes against targets of opportunity. Simultaneously, there was significant public concern regarding Hussein's ability to use weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear missiles, chemical and biological warfare. Military specialists have diversified opinions regarding of why weapons of mass destruction were not used by Iraq. Practically, there are three critical possibilities. One of the most common assertions is that Saddam Hussein could not use them.
Practically, being constantly moving from one location to another, the US forces did not stay long enough in Kuwait to give him a really good target. Upon entering the infamous Red Zone around Baghdad, the troops were not closely linked as targets, and Iraq did not have much of its military potential left, nor really any practical opportunity. Assertion number two is that Hussein may have refused from utilization of weapons of mass destruction due to evident military advantage of the United States. In case nuclear missiles or chemical weapon was applied, military specialists believe that it would not have significant affect. The last common assertion is that Hussein did not have any mentioned weapons, or possessed them poorly weaponize d. Practically, with the ground forces moving against the Iraqi troops, it was only a matter of time until the American ground forces surround Iraq army and the air power destroyed it.
Surprising it took only three days to break the resistance of the Iraqi Republican Guard. Early on, the resistance was a resistance of the fedayeen-soldiers taking off their uniforms and fighting inside built up areas. Critically, it could not be recognized as a resistance to the movement, basically because the soldiers just moved around the built up areas. The forces that got caught in there were the United States Marines who were trying to clean Nasiriyah and, and consequently they were trying to advance toward Al Kut, because they were within built up areas while the army just went around them and ended up in the city of Karbala.
From the practical point of view, once the Iraq military forces decided upon the open battle confrontation, they were immediately defeated, having no viable capacity to operate on the land against the extraordinarily effective US airpower capabilities. There was also a certain degree of concern and impatience surrounding the possibility of an assault of the Iraqi capital; some specialists were predicting more intense fighting in the streets of Baghdad than in other Iraqi cities. Had the Iraqis been well organized and equipped, and had they imposed an adequate control over the population, the assault of capital might have turned into more difficult battle. However, the US military forces possessed technology and training advantages that no other force in history has ever utilized. Moreover, the US forces had a continuous satellite overhead view of Baghdad practically, they could see everything.
They had the MINI tank, which is damn near impossible to knock out except by first-line Soviet armor, and the coalition forces were using mobility against the Iraqis built up area. From the critical point of view, when the Iraqis tried to place obstacles, they did a poor job of it, because the tank forces quickly overcame the obstacles and kept moving. Coalition tank units were moving far more effectively, forecasting and bypassing the Iraqi attempts at counter-maneuvers against them. The US tanks had the advantage on the thunder runs when they diminished the resistance and then let the Iraqis come to them. Critically, simple narration of modern military conflict can be considered to be transparent and free of any prejudice and unnecessary rumors. However, practically there was something heavy in the air as bombs began to destroy Baghdad during the U.
S. war on Iraq. In the situation where before there had been civilized and reasonable democratic debate on the morality of assaulting a nation because it might secure terrorists and develop weapons of mass destruction suddenly there was an unpretentious silence. As smart bombs continued to ruin the streets around innocent Iraqi citizens, revelations began to increase unrest and doubt among Americans.
Was it really a war to destroy terrorism or was it a war for imperialism and transnational business interests? While the president ignored citizens, diplomats and the community who continued to protest, a collection of alternative news magazines revealed confusing contradictions regarding the fictional democratic war. Journalists and society wondered why Iraq was suddenly so dangerous and such an imminent threat to the United States when there was virtually no talk of rescuing it during the 2000 presidential election. Was Iraq not the same nation that was bombed into submission just ten years earlier, and was this not the nation that had been suffering from sanctions and everlasting inspections by a United Nations team? Was this a war to liquidate terror or was it more about the pursuing of oil profits that flowed under the Iraqi sand? Finally, was it about a president and vice-president who desired peace or a piece of the action?
Contemporary war in Iraq constituted an event of unprecedented violation of international, humanitarian law, interference in the internal politics of independent and sovereign state, and finally a vivid demonstration of politics of US double standards in pursuing further political and economical gains. As soon as Bush chose to neglect the UNs recommendations - and the opinions of millions of protesting American citizens as well as others throughout the world - to permit nuclear weapons inspections, there has been a dramatic shift in the political terrain of the American landscape. Instead of Americans being free to reveal their disagreement about a questionable war, many discovered that they were virtually forced to admit the need for the conflict or be labeled anti-military. Similarly to abolitionists over a hundred years before, advocates for peace were increasingly given the image of apostates, of radicals who did not love their country, of people who did not value the sacrifice of their soldiers.
The Air radio broadcast and talk - always a vivid image of what is most filthy and sensational in the American psyche - proclaimed the power of the U. S. military and criticized the traitors and cowards who prefer protesting war to standing behind U. S.
forces (Mayer, 101 - 102). On May 1, 2003, Bush stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and declared, Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. I am honored to be your commander in chief. Between the traditional speech praise and handshakes, there was never a mention of the 138 U. S.
victims, the 32 British deaths, or the estimated 2, 300 Iraqi fatalities (Weigel, 18 - 19). All of this is expected in a war initiated to protect persecuted people and oppressed nation. However, what if this war was about political and economic interests? News headlines on April 3, 2003, disclosed an interesting fact: Bush's approval rating had jumped to over 70 percent. From the practical point of view, war is often good for presidents, because traditionally it unites a nation and asks citizens to choose between their leader and the dark nemesis thousands of miles away. The question Americans should ask, however, is whether it is ethical for the American President to utilize war - and the sacrifices of innocent and brave people - to pillage another countrys oil or to bolster their own political popularity.
According to Eric Alterman published in the November 2002 issue of the Nation, Bush has continuously lied about his motivation and interests for attacking Iraq. Alterman asserts that Bush lied as a pretense for conducting forces to a war, ...
Free research essays on topics related to: point of view, nuclear missiles, saddam hussein, weapons of mass destruction, political and economic
Research essay sample on Weapons Of Mass Destruction Point Of View
