The 2003 War in Iraq Assignment | Essay Help Services

This assignment was graded at 88% by my professor. He is giving us a second chance to review and edit our paper to improve it. I am looking to reach a target of 95%, so that I will safely get an A. The following were my instructions when I ordered it previously (also on EssayPro): Please read the instructions CAREFULLY for the paper in this link (especially the “A” papers) : http://www.kropfpolisci.com/essay.exam.iraq.war.pdf The given book titles are found in this link : http://www.kropfpolisci.com/books.on.iraq.pdf Other documents/articles can be found in this website : (scroll to The 2003 War in Iraq: Theory and Aftermath – POLSC 250 Spring 2020 Research Project) http://www.kropfpolisci.com/dvcpolsci250.htm

The 2003 War In Iraq: Theory And Aftermath

Benedict Putra

Diablo Valley College

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 2003 War In Iraq: Theory And Aftermath

Introduction

The 2003 US invasion on Iraq isdepicted as the longest, largest and most expensive combat. The 2003 Iraq war became the main post-Cold War that called for the invasion of the American military operation, owing to its position in international relations and politics. The invasion by the US was purposefully meant to institute hegemony power and authority in the Middle East so as to access the rich oil resources (Everest, 2004).  Although in some cases country invasion may be unprecedented, especially regarding the broad involvement of the American military in a Muslim state, the invasion of Iraq by the US was instigated by peace, security and other reasons which can be understood by referring to the established world theories of politics and war. Therefore, this paper gives insight into the 2003 Iraq war and the invasions by the United States using the nine theories of interstate conflicts.

Historical Background To The Conflict

The Rise of Saddam Hussein

Before Saddam Hussein was born, his father had passed on and the mother later remarried. The stepfather was violent and abusive sending the youngster at the age of eight to steal, prompting Hussein to run away from home and attend school. At the age of ten, Hussein was familiar with the use of guns (Lieberfeld, 2005). However, despite his vulnerable and abusive background where nobody thought somebody could rise to be a president, his mother’s brother Khayrallah Tulfah, who was a school teacher took the responsibility of taking care of his nephew. Saddam was ambitious of becoming an army officer, an ambition that his uncle greatly encouraged. A military career was the only way for his upward mobility in Iraq – the country which had been torn apart by coups and their countercoups. Saddam Hussein’s performance kept him out of Baghdad’s military academy, however, he later compensated his disappointments by proclaiming himself as a field marshal  (a word generally reserved for the military) when he rose to power (Lieberfeld, 2005).

Saddam Hussein later joined Iraq politics that were characterized by the turbulent internal affairs. At the age of nineteen, Hussein took part in the 1956 attempted coup against the Iraq monarchy. A year later, he joined the Ba’ath Party which became the ruling political party of Iraq in 1968. The party was founded on the socialist pan-Arabic ideology based on the Italian fascism and Germany National Socialism. Hussein came to prominence in 1959 when he unsuccessfully, with his uncle, attempted in assassinating General Abd al-Karim Qassem who was then the ruler of Iraq (Lieberfeld, 2005). The successful coup of 1968 that resulted in making the Ba’ath Party ascend to power saw Hussein promoted to the regional command council, where he was tasked with leading a special force that was responsible for assassination and terror. Hussein became the interrogator and the Qasr al-Nihayyat torturer as it was popularly known since this was the place wherein 1950 King Faisal II and his entire family got gunned down. Saddam made it his responsibility in building the party’s internal security system referred to as the Jihaz Haneen. He quickly rose through ranks because of the effectiveness he showed as a torturer. His power continued to increase immensely until he landed the position of the deputy chairman of the revolutionary command council which was the real power in Iraq behind President General Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr who was a distant relative of Hussein (Lieberfeld, 2005).

On July 17^th, 1979 which was a national day, Saddam Hussein declared himself the president of Iraq after the previous day convenient resignation of al-Bakr because of ill-health (Lieberfeld, 2005). For more than twenty years, Iraq was run by the Ba’ath party, which was exclusively under the total control of Hussein Saddam. Once in power, Hussein instituted the use of single-party leadership, by tightening the grip command of the economy, creation of secret police and intelligence networks, and placing his tribal allies in strategic positions. Hussein became the president, leader, father of the nation and tribe, and the ideologue. The citizens of Iraq were kept in check by the secret intelligence services, which enforced the Hussein policies by the use of torture and various punishments as the enemies of people in demonstrating the dangers of failing to conform to the Hussein regime

Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988)

The 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war was one war that was bloody, proving to be a pointless conflict. The cause of the war is best understood by the realism perspective where states make decisions of fighting other states to gain power and authority. The war between Iraq and Iran can also be best illustrated by the Iraq’s fear of attacks by Iran that was one of the Middle East allies of the United States, which had oil interest in the rich wells of Iraq to feed its drying wells in the United States. The war was instigated by the Iranian revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah which resulted in the overthrowing of Shah Pahlavi in 1978 and 1979 (Lieberfeld, 2005). Saddam who was then the president of Iraqi welcomed the overthrowing of Shah but his joy later turned to alarm when Ayatollah started calling for the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein by the use of the Shia revolution. Alarmed by these threats, Hussein called for a new battle of Qadisiyyah which was retaliated by the Ba’athist regime that was popularly referred to as the puppet of Satan called by Ayatollah.

In April 1980, the foreign minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz survived an attempted assassination that Saddam blamed on the Iranians. As the Shah started responding to the Ayatollah calls, Saddam Hussein retaliated by hanging Ayatollah’s top leaders of the shai revolution. In 1980 September 22^nd, Iraq launched an around invasion on Iran – Iraq began by using airstrikes of the Iran air force, which was followed by a prolonged ground invasion carried out by the six Iraq divisions of armies (Lieberfeld, 2005. Saddam Hussein expected other ethnic Arabs from Khuzestan to join in supporting the invasion but they never joined because of the Shiites. The war resulted in a stalemate the whole of 1981 giving the Iranians enough time in rearranging its forces and successfully launched counter-attack of Iraq in 1982 by the use of the human waves that resulted in driving the Iraqis out of Khorramshahr. In April, Hussein withdrew his military forces from the territory of Iran. In June 1980 Hussein called for ceasing the war fire and return things to the pre-war status quo (Lieberfeld, 2005). However, such a call was rejected by Ayatollah who called for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and planning an invasion of Iraq despite objects by its surviving army.

According to Lieberfeld (2005), in July 1982, the Iranian military invaded Iraq to the city of Basra. However, the Iraqis were prepared for this invasion and had dug big trenches and bunkers that within a short time led to Iranian forces running short of ammunition. In addition to the trenches and bunkers, the Saddam forces used the deployment of chemical weapons that they used against the Iranian forces which eccentrically reduced the Ayatollah army to a completely dependent on the suicide attacks by the human waves. Alarmed by the further Islamic revolutions, President Reagan promised that America was going to do everything necessary in preventing Iraq from losing in the Iranian war. The receiving of aid by the American government in the war is one of the explanations given by the Marxist theory that included, loans, weapons, and military intelligence. The Marxist theory is built on the assumption that leaders prize their political survival over the innocent citizens (Lieberfeld, 2005). America gaive an aid for them to continue importing oil from Iraq where they had been given a big share of the IPC share. Throughout 1983, Iran launched five main invasions against Iraq but they were unable to break the entrenchments of Iraq. Responding to the invasion, Saddam commanded the firing of missiles on Iran’s eleven cities. In 1984, the Iraq-Iran war had entered a maritime phase with Iraq attacking the Persian Gulf oil tankers resulting in Iran responding by invading all the Iraq oil tankers (Lieberfeld, 2005). Consequently, America threatened in joining the war for the fear of losing the oil resources.

In February 1988 Iraq unleashed one of the deadliest attacks on the Iranian cities (Lieberfeld, 2005). Iraq started in preparing a major offensive that could be used in pushing the Iranian out of the territories of Iraq. Worn down by several years of war with the large number of people that Iraq had lost, the Iranian government started contemplating of the peace deal. Saddam, with  his vast support, demanded the withdrawal of Ayatollah’s call for the removal of Hussein Saddam from power, prompting Hussein to engage in the peace deal as he wanted and Ayatollah finally signing the deal.

Therefore, the whole eight years is better explained by the realism theory that explains the various aspects of foreign policies that have over time remained consistent. Considering the Iraq-Iran war from a realist perspective, it can be seen that the two governments made decisions of going into war against each other for the eternal quests of power and security because of the actual fear of being attacked by the other states. Leaders in the fighting nations often calculate the war benefits and costs concerning their state’s security and power (Lieberfeld, 2005).

The US Relations With Iraq

On December 18^th, 2011, over five hundred US soldiers at Camp Adder, found in the southern part of Iraq, using over 11 military vehicles, quietly drove off in the middle of the night without notifying their Iraq counterparts of their leave (Cramer & Thrall, 2013). Being on high alert, the convoy maneuvered to the south reaching the Kuwait border after five hours of travel. The departure of this 3^rd class of the Brigade Combat Team that belonged to the first division of the US army Calvary division that had secretly managed in departing Iraq with the hope of avoiding opportunistic attacks by the Iraq adversaries, marked the end of nearly over nine years of the US army in Iraq since its invasion in 2003(Cramer & Thrall, 2013. Although this third convoy was able to leave Iraq without having any incidences of war, it left behind a huge controversy of war in origin whose costs were great to both the American armies.

The 2003 U.S military invasion of Iraq and its extended stay can be explained better, using the liberal theory that indicates that decisions regarding war are derived from the state’s internal features, especially their type of government structure, as well as the international law. Global security and economic prosperity are usually dependent on the availability of freedom of trade though democratic nations that provide means of solving the conflict with the help of international bodies. Liberalism subsumes several international relations theories. The Wilsonian/Kantian idealism theory is based on the ideology that in states that have more democracy, there is peace and good relations between those states asserting that there are fewer conflicts between such states (Everest, 2004)). Using such terms of prescriptions, the liberalism, therefore, asserts that liberals prefer using force in replacing the dictatorship states like Iraq with democracies, to ensure the enhancement of human rights and propagation of democracy and also enhancing the US national security and that of its allies. Also, the relations were based on the determinism theory of America benefiting from the rich oil wells in the Middle East.

Therefore the invasion and the extended stay of the American troops in Iraq was significant and dramatic in the long history regarding the relations between the two nations. Before this invasion, the two nations were allies that prompted the US policy to be divided into five phases as the interests of the US in Iraq continued to change in the international context.

The Genesis Of The Iraq-US Relations 1958

Before World War II broke out, America had very little interest in Mesopotamia. The initial Americans to arrive in Iraq were missionaries in the 1830s building schools, churches, and other health facilities at the beginning of the 20th century. An archeologist from the American universities during 1880-1920 carried various field works and discovered several physical artifacts that could be used in corroborating biblical history. In 1910, the US oil companies started engaging Iraq for trade benefits, enabling it to be given a 23. 75 share of Iraq Petroleum Company ownership in 1928 (Everest, 2004). After over ten years, the Iraq petroleum company found a huge reservoir of oil well around Kirkuk and constructed several facilities, pipelines,  and wells for productions, resulting in yielding huge profits from this discovery.

In the early years, the US government was less concerned with Iraq. President Woodrow Wilson who had considered the liberal systems of governance after World War I that included the self-determination of Iraq and other members of the Ottoman Empire was unable to effectively execute his goals. During the 1920 and 1930s, the US diplomats differed with the British officials who were in charge of Iraq in demarcating the state borders in building a western monarchy. Owing to the fear of the US on the threat of Baghdad being taken over by Nazi Germany during the Second World War, the US diplomats made an endorsement of the British military in suppressing the Rashid Ali al-Gailani who was a pro-Nazi (Bennis & Moushabeck, 1991). With the US back-up, the British military managed to restore the western monarchy. The post-world war II international policies further drifted America into having close relations with Iraq.  However, the commencement of the cold war grew fears of the expansionism of the Soviet in Washington, generating a determination of the American leaders in doing all to avoid and reduce the communism spread in Iraq.

Having been financially drained after the end of world war, British rule was unable to maintain its power of imperial dominance in the state. The region was also much destabilized by other intra-regional conflicts like the eruption of the 1948-1949 Arab-Israel war (Bennis & Moushabeck, 1991). Also, the rise of the anti-western nationalism and the US supporting Israel contributed largely to undermining the local popularity. Later on, in 1950, America offered in stabilizing Iraq by helping in negotiating the withdrawal of the Iraq military forces from the theatre of Palestine which was a broad plan of ending the Arab-Israel conflict. American officials encouraged the increment of production of oil by IPC and sharing a large percentage of its revenues with Iraq. America also provided military and economic aids to the government of Iraq. By 1955, America had included Iraq in the Baghdad pact as a member that was an anti-Soviet partnership of defense that linked Iraq, turkey, Britain, Iran, and Pakistan with backing from the US that was informal (Cramer & Thrall, 2013). From the above, it had appeared that the US had been successful in finding a long-lasting solution to the stability and the anti-communism in Iraq.

However, in July 1958, the Iraq military disillusioned by the subservience of the western monarchy and inspiration by Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt who was a revolutionist took part in a bloody coup that led to the overthrowing of the king and instituting a new regime that was anti-western (Cramer & Thrall, 2013). In response to this, President Eisenhower sent into Lebanon the US marines in averting an uprising rebellion, rejecting the idea of military intervention in reversing the Baghdad revolution because he considered it politically risky and tactically difficult.

1958-1979- Management Of Chronic Instability

The second phase that defines the relations between the US and Iraq was defined by the political instability that was experienced in 1958 after the Iraq revolution which was being followed by several other revolts in the following years (Lieberfeld, 2005). Nationalists who aimed in removing the foreign imperialism vestiges conflicted with the communists who were seeking influence from politics. On the international stage, although it seemed unstable, Iraq managed in emerging as an independent power with its government pursuing neutralism in the Cold War and flittering with other communist states and the Soviet Union. Between 1958-1979, America pursued interlocking goals with Iraq (Lieberfeld, 2005). Representing America’s economic and political interests in Iraq that included the rich oil mines and other resources, the United States officials sought in stabilizing the political relations with the Baghdad government, that was aimed in preventing the rise of communism denying the soviet union influence, and also striving in preventing the emergence of Iraq as the main source of conflicts in the area.

After the 1958 coup, American diplomats managed in maintaining political relations with Iraq, negotiating the end of the Baghdad peace pact, as well as averting the Anglo-Iraq conflict in Kuwait in 1961, disbursement of foreign aid, and trade promotion. However such relations declined in the 1960s (Lieberfeld, 2005).

The Saddam Hussein Challenge

The third phase of the US-Iraq relations is marked by the takeover of the Baghdad power by Saddam Hussein who identified himself as the main bulwark against the Islamic fundamentalism promoted by ayatollah of Iran (Ahmed, 2003). As a result of the mounting tensions between the two gulf powers, a war broke out that lasted for eight years which saw a total of over a million fatalities. The US offered in giving its support to Iraq with a ceasefire resolution appeal that saw the end of the war between the two gulf powers. However, these relations were altered by the 9/11 attacks that were blamed on the Islamic extremist that Saddam the leader of Iraq was blamed to support. According to the speech that was given by President George Bush, Iraq was considered to be one of the most terrorist nations that he world had to avoid at all costs since they were all supportive of manufacturing mass weapons that they could use in causing mass destruction. The aftermath of the 9/11 terroror invasion on the US resulted in the deployment of the US military forces that searched for Saddam and killed him Iran (Ahmed, 2003). Despite the recent relations between the US and Iraq that have been on and off, the recent killing of the leaders of Iraq by the US drones has sparked another threat of another war breaking between the US and Iraq deepening further the hostile relations between the two nations.

The First Persian Gulf War (January 1991-Operation Desert Storm)

Critical Outcomes

The operation desert storm popularly referred as the first Persian Gulf war was the decision made by Iraq in invading Kuwait that is better explained by the realism theory to a greater extent and the joining of the US in stopping the invasion is can be explained by the feminist theory of wanting peace and solving conflicts amicably (Bennis & Moushabeck, 1991). Iraq accused Kuwait of various issues planned in attacking Kuwait to show their supremacy and dominance in the Middle East but at the end of the war, there were critical outcomes when the US joined to protect its oil interest and resume peace. First, the war created conditions for future military actions by affecting the possibilities of both Iraq and the US conducting military operations against one another in 2003(Lieberfeld, 2005). As a result of the US counter-attacks using the airstrikes and missiles, it destroyed the Iraq navy and the best combat Iraq aircraft. Despite the victory of the coalition in the operation desert storm, the coalition failed in achieving its primary goal of destroying the Republican Guard of Iraq that possessed much of the military weapons of Iraq. Also, Saddam Hussein remained in power and was capable of forcing an internal dissent suppression.

The 1990s

The Sanctions

After Saddam had invaded Kuwait following its reluctance to withdraw its troops as directed by the US forces, the Americans through the help of the UN security committee issued sanctions to Iraq which theoretically were influenced by the Marxist theory. Sanctions were considered to be among the greatest crimes against humanity in the Middle East committed by western leaders in the 1990s which included the closing of all state trade with Iraq and having a no-fly zone over Iraq skies (Bennis & Moushabeck, 1991). Initially, the sanctions were used in persuading Saddam from withdrawing his troops from Kuwait but were justified as ways in which the US used in preventing Saddam from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Some critiques argue that the sanctions had no great effect on Hussein’s regime but only affected the innocent Iraqis citizens. During the imposition of these sanctions, humanitarian bodies reported the suffering of the Iraq people that included the lack of basic medicines, clean water, food that led to thousands of children dying(Bennis & Moushabeck, 1991). As such, the Marxist and other radical theorists posed questions on whether the sanction benefits outweighed the suffering they caused, and whether the west managed in creating conditions they claimed in opposing of creating a desperate, angry Iraq.

UN Resolutions

After deploying all attempts in making Iraq to comply with the United Nation; obligations of implementing the resolution 660 and the other resolutions given by the body in 1990’ Iraq invasion in Kuwait, the security council evoked chapter VII of the charter regarding the United Nations, for maintaining and preserving international security and peace (Kellner, 2007). First, the UN demanded full compliance of resolution 660 and other resolutions by Iraq, by giving the country a final goodwill opportunity of doing so. Secondly, authorized the co-operating member states with Kuwait, unless Iraq fully implemented the resolution before or on 15^th January 1991 in restoring peace and security in the Persian Gulf. Thirdly, requested all states in providing necessary support for all actions to be undertaken in pursuance of paragraph two of the current resolution. Lastly, was the decision of remaining seized of the matter.

The Second Gulf War (March 2003- Operation Iraq Freedom)

Critical Outcomes

The operation of Iraq’s freedom was the US-led military operation under a coalition to overthrow Hussein from power and ensure they inhibited his ability to use the mass weapons for mass destruction or renting them out to terrorists that were launched in March 2003. Undertaking such an operation was informed by realism, liberalism, and feminist theoretical perspectives. Saddam was given 48 hours by the George Bush administration to leave Iraq, buthe refused (Ahmed, 2003). After various attacks by the coalition military operations led by the US government, and taking control of Kuwait, they managed in capturing Saddam Hussein in December 2003 who was later executed in 2006 against the human evils. After the execution of Saddam, the US military helped the state of Iraq in choosing and having a new structure of government and helping the country in freezing out the Hussein diehards and extremists, who finally pulled their troops out of Iraq in 2011 (Cramer & Thrall, 2013). The operation freedom Iraq left many of Saddam’s soldiers dead with his Republican Guard destroyed and the introduction of open trade to help boost the economy that had suffered under the war and sanctions imposed because of Saddam’s leadership.

War On Terror (September 11)

The 9/11 terrorist attacked marked a watershed in the history of America. Concerns regarding American attacks despite its military superiority took the center stage, making prevention of similar attacks in the future the primary focus of the US government. The decisions are taken by the US after 9/11 in preventing similar attacks in the future by the extremes groups who were eager in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using them fall on various theoretical perspectives (Ahmed, 2003). First is the realism theory whereby President Bush made remarks that the main aim of the US was to keep its global hegemony that felt threatened by the 9/11 attacks and they had to do everything in overthrowing the government of Saddam Hussein that led to the invasion of US into Iraq in 2003.

Also, the 9/11attacks are best understood in the liberalism perspectives through the primary liberal motives of the US invading Iraq based on the administration of the liberal priorities like the building pf democratic nations, which were disparaged during the 2000 bush’s presidential campaigns (Kellner, 2007). However, the 9/11 attacks explain the main reasons for the invasion of the US in Iraq. Form a liberal perspective, the September 11 attacks were conducted by people from extremist nations in the Middle East. Despite that Iraq was never participated in conducting the attack, it gave the US a new compelling incentive of using its power in fostering democracy in Iraq. Apart from the two theories, the incentive of fighting for democracy of the country by invading it is also better understood by the post-constructivist and post-structuralism theories since they depict the main reason of invading Iraq to be as a result of making it a democratic government, chosen by people and one that the US citizens could easily do business without skirmishes.

Conclusion

Considering the above discussion, it is evident that the realist perspective of all the nine theories of the globalization world of politics proves to be the most convincing theoretical perspective regarding the 2003 invasion of the United States on Iraq. The realists indicates that countries goes into war on motives of national security, power, and resources which form the three core reasons as to why the invasion happened and why it is likely to continue shortly.  Therefore, the US invaded and aided Iraq in the past to gain national security, power, and resources that were fundamental for the US government in maintaining its hegemony.

 

 

 

 

References

Ahmed, N. M. (2003). Behind the war on terror: western secret strategy and the struggle for Iraq. CLAIRVIEW BOOKS.

Bennis, P., & Moushabeck, M. (Eds.). (1991). Beyond the Storm: A Gulf Crisis Reader. Interlink Publishing Group.

Cramer, J. K., & Thrall, A. T. (Eds.). (2013). Why Did the United States Invade Iraq?. Routledge.

Everest, L. (2004). Oil, power, and Empire: Iraq and the US global agenda. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.

Kellner, D. (2007). Globalization, terrorism, and democracy: 9/11 and its aftermath In Frontiers of Globalization Research (pp. 243-268). Springer, Boston, MA.

Lieberfeld, D. (2005). Theories of conflict and the Iraq war. International Journal of Peace Studies, 1-21.