Was the war in Iraq justified?
The war in Iraq, which has been an overriding foreign policy issue throughout past and present, today even after the de-stabilization of Saddam Hussein , has left the country in a convalescent infrastructural status. According to Greenpeace, through their studies, the outcome is as follows: 1) Iraqi civilian casualties and body counts amount to 8,100 however this experiences a variation according to the supplier of statistics. “Press” states an estimate of 3,420 civilians killed and “Los Angeles Times” varies this to 1,700 dead and 8,000 injured in Baghdad.
2) Iraq has become an extremely hazardous nation for it’s` inhabitants. 10,788 cluster bombs were dropped by the Americans during the war, containing 1. 8 million sub missiles. 110, 00 of which were used by the British. 3) The utilities status is a total devastation due to severe devastation of its ad ministerial infrastructure. We have high levels of insanity due to water pollution, leading to typhoid and cholera. The health care sector also has totally disintegrated. The Iraqi Health minister asserted “The system completely collapsed during the war”. ( WWW. GREENPEACE.
ORG/INTERNATIONAL/CAMPAIGN/ABOLISH-NUCLEAR-WEAPONS) Looking at the above statistics, Greenpeace made a close approximation of there being a deficit of approximately 23 billion in order to repair the utilities side alone, by 2010. Above we have clearly expounded upon the internal cost of the war, however we must not forget about the numerous military casualties and deaths, which also amount to what may be regarded as a war outcome. In light of all this, was the invasion of Iraq justified? An answer to a question like this can never be clear cut, but only two fold.
Also whichever side one decides to take the opposing point of view is equally strong. Let us start by taking the side of “The invasion of Iraq was justified”. Iraq was being led by one of the most tyrannical world leaders. He had no regard for human rights, international concordats, or justice. We are talking of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein did not reign in Iraq under the flag of democracy; on the contrary he reigned with the scepter of dictatorship. Anyone who was found to contradict his rules or views was immediately sentenced to death and killed into the most atrocious ways.
Yes it is true , America could have left the U,N to promulgate a response, however as seen after the disregarded concordat after the 1991 Gulf War the effect would have been dismal and, anyway disregarded by Saddam. So what should have America have done? America already experienced a horrific terrorist attack by the Al Qaeda. America was and is on e of the strongest world military powers. Britain naturally follows America, so as to ensure a defense in case she is attacked. If America had taken a placid outlook, what type of message would she have sent to countries opposing democracy and America?
What would have Saddam Hussein taught? He would have detected a weak nation who could be bullied at mere whips. The perfect mirroring scenario has to be the kidnapping by Iran of British naval military personnel. Britain’s response, was interpreted as Britain not willing to push military action unless really coerced, hence they could be easily bullied. This is the way Iran interpreted the action in face of the fact that as a country they were trying to nuclearly arm themselves alongside North Korea.
“Saddam is a brutal and menacing figure who is likely to be even more dangerous in the future” (WAR WITH IRAQ COST, CONSEQUENCES AND ALTERNATIVES. CARL KAYSEN,STEVEN E MILLER). In light of this, the question was, to sit back and wait for Iraq to strike first or give the first strike in the name of a pre-emptive war. America and Britain decided to act first and invade Iraq, hence eliminating the threat. In this case, yes the invasion of Iraq is justified. At the outset we said this was a question with a binary response. Hence it is also true to state that America and Britain were wrong in invading Iraq.
America in its National Security policy, in September 20002, stated, in a brief resume, that when dealing with the question of Iraq, a pre-emptive approach was the best policy. However Carl Kaiser, Johm D stemburner and Martin B malieu in their research paper “WAR WITH IRAQ, COST, CONSEQUENCE AND ALTERNATIVE” describe America with the following words. “The U. S intends to bully and maintain its defenses “beyond challenge” also; they state that America would have persued its policy of Iraqi invasion with or without the other countries support.
Taking this into perspective, we must ask, was America merely playing the big bully role. If America was merely retaliating “To advance a parochial interest in maintaining U. S. global dominance regardless of the consequences of others” “WAR WITH IRAQ, COST, CONSEQUENCES AND ALTERNATIVE, CARL KAYSEN) the she was not justified invading Iraq. One need not go to war solely to prove ones supremacy. Here we have the two case scenarios, the two harsh realities as top wither or not the invasion of Iraq was right.
According to which side we take however, we must remember the opposing side will be equally strong. The real motive underlying this foreign policy lies only in the minds of its fabricators and shall never be uttered thoroughly, for this is politics. Hence all interjections we make really are all based upon speculations. .
2002 BY THE AMERICAN ACCADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES ISBN 0-87724-036-1 WAR WITH IRAQ COST,CONSEQUENCES AND ALTERNATIVES CARL KAYSEN, STEVEN E. MILLER , MARTIN B. MILLER WWW/GREENPEACE. ORG/IMTERNATIONAL/CAMPAIGNS/ABOLISH-NUCLEAR WEAPONS DAILY TELEGRAPH NEWSPAPER 12/04/04Sample Essay of Eduzaurus.com