Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An essay on Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An essay on Iraq

    An essay I wrote on Iraq. Just wanted some constructive criticism. This is actually only the second part (out of 3) of the essay. The first part deals with the parallels between the Soviet-Afghan war and the US-Iraq war. Mostly a historical overview so I'm not posting it. If someone wants to read it let me know.

    A different kind of war

    Almost immediately after the attacks on September 11th the Bush administration inexplicably started talking about what should be done about Iraq. From the very onset the rhetoric that the administration and its officials used was ambiguous and deceptive. Saddam Hussein was repeatedly brought up when talking about the ‘War on Terror’ and bin Laden became an afterthought that was rarely ever mentioned. Immediately after 9/11, polls showed that only 3% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had something to do with the attacks. What is astounding is that a NY Times/CBS poll done in March of 2003, right before the Iraq invasion, found that 45% of Americans believed Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11 . Ask yourself why, within a year and a half, so many people believed the absolutely false notion that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and many other top administration officials all continuously associated Iraq with 9/11 and the War on Terror in all their speeches before the invasion. In fact notes made by Rumsfeld immediatetly after 9/11 show him saying, "Judge whether good enough hit S.H.at same time. Not only UBL.” It doesn’t end there. He goes on to say "Go massive, sweep it all up. Things related and not." To take war so lightly and to not think about the consequences of such an action is absurd.

    I still remember when the issue about Iraq first came up. Overnight the administration’s focus shifted directly onto Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Obviously if the US is facing a threat it should respond immediately. But the more one looks at the situation it becomes apparently clear that Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States. Never mind that we now know that Saddam never had any WMDs and no plans to make any. I will specifically address this issue based on what we knew before the invasion started. The intelligence we had was extremely shady at best. We had more information on the North Korean nuclear program than we did on Iraq’s. We now know that the reason there wasn’t much information on Iraq’s weapon program was because they didn’t have a one in the first place. Even if for some reason we were to assume that Iraq did have nuclear weapons it is wildly illogical to assume that they would use it. The reason is mutually assured destruction. This is the understanding that if either side initiates the use of nuclear weapons, the opposition will respond with sufficient power to inflict unacceptable damage. This is what sustained the nonuse of nuclear arms during the Cold War for fifty years. The bottom line is if Iraq or North Korea both had nuclear weapons, and used them, they would be totally destroyed by other nations with nuclear weapons. United States policy has always reserved the use of nuclear arms as an option during warfare. Sovereign nations try and do what is in their best interest. Yes, it seems sometimes that there are countries that contradict this notion, but in those circumstances it is done by leaders of nations that value their power over everything, even at the expense of their citizens (example: Saddam). Say Iraq finally built a nuclear weapon and decided to attack Israel (they would never have had any capability of attacking the US). What exactly would you expect the world response to be? Iraq would literally be bombed off the globe if this scenario were ever to take place. This doesn’t exactly serve the best interests of Saddam or Iraq. It is actually more logical to assume that if Saddam had WMDs he would not use it unless he was attacked by the US. Obviously it would be a different situation if Saddam Hussein repeatedly threatened the US with WMDs, but this was not the case at all. Iraq had as much as an incentive to use nuclear weapons on Israel or the US as France does. Islamist radical terrorists on the other hand would use nuclear force on the US if they could, even at the expense of their life. This is because terrorists fight for their cause and beliefs above everything, while nations and leaders strive for survival and power.

    Even if one wanted to argue that a rogue nation with WMDs should be dealt with in a militaristic fashion, the fact remains that in order to start a preemptive war of this magnitude the evidence should have been overwhelming and nothing less than smoking gun evidence of nuclear arms. Instead we were presented with a few vague photographs and a discounted story about African uranium.

    Since the WMD reason for war has been thoroughly discounted, supporters now turn to reason number two: Saddam was a brutal dictator whose people lived under oppression and they needed to be freed from tyranny. Part of that is true. He was a dictator who did as he pleased. But at the same time Iraq was a secular state and their people had more individual freedoms than those in Saudi Arabia. And while the fact that Saddam was a dictator that put down all opposition and used his country’s resources for his own needs is unacceptable by all means, the fact remains that North Korea is more oppressive to its own people than Iraq ever was. Yet we don’t do anything about the North Korean situation. Why is this the case? Because the consequences of taking such an action far outweigh any benefits. The same logic should have been used with Iraq. The cost in human lives, resources, and the potential outcome of such an action are just not worth it. In other words, it does more harm than good. We went in without thinking through the consequences of such an enormous undertaking. The decision for war was rushed because the administration knew they could get public support immediately on the heels of 9/11.

    What most fail to realize is that we are not in a typical war. Typical wars fought between nations are very different than the one we are fighting in Iraq. Countries and leaders surrender and war eventually comes to an end in those situations. This is how wars throughout history have been carried out. The war in Iraq, though, is not against a country. It is an inherently un-winnable war due to the very nature of it. One can exact massive retaliation against the enemy but they will never give up. Their convictions will never become weaker, only stronger. They will never find a shortage of people willing to give up everything to fight for what they believe in. A recent Time magazine article stated that there were thousands of people on waiting lists to be suicide bombers in Iraq. And this list grows every day. There is obviously some larger issue here. Why do they hate us so much? The simplistic explanation that many war supporters, including the President, like to offer is that they are evil and hate our freedom. Unfortunately it’s those types of statements that cause more problems than they solve. Imagine growing up in the Middle East. From your very first day you are inundated with anti US and anti Israel propaganda. If one grows up all their life being told this, and are not offered much else, to what capacity do we judge their decisions? Obviously this doesn’t excuse the actions of terrorists, but to simply dismiss them as evil would put no value on their lives and not understand the very rationale of why they do what they do.

    The parallels between the Soviet-Afghani war and the US-Iraqi war cannot be dismissed. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the new Osama bin Laden. We have created a distinct rise in Islamic fundamentalism. The hatred that we are inspiring is giving them an unlimited number of insurgents willing to fight for what they believe to be the will of God. The world is witnessing more anti-Americanism now then ever before in history. These are direct consequences of the war in Iraq.

    We engaged in a preemptive war based on horridly faulty analysis. We invaded a country on the premise that they posed a threat to global security. We were dead wrong. The administration presented reasons in deceptive ways that mislead the American people. We went from the most sympathized nation on earth directly after September 11th to the most hated within a span of a year. We lost the respect of the world. The costs to date? Over 2,600 coalition deaths and counting; almost 18,000 Americans casualties. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi collateral deaths. The war is costing $200 million every day, is reaching $300 billion total, will reach upwards of $600 billion in the next couple years, and will have a potential total cost of over $1 trillion. Resources and intelligence that could have been used for the real fight against terrorism are all being used on Iraq. We have weakened our ability to respond to other, more real threats such as Iran. We are creating more terrorists then we are killing and Iraq has now become the hub of international terrorism in the world. Ask yourself, was it worth it?

  • #2
    Just wanted some constructive criticism.
    Here?

    Are you looking for editing advice?

    For instance,

    From the very onset the rhetoric that the administration and its officials used was ambiguous and deceptive. Saddam Hussein was repeatedly brought up when talking about the ‘War on Terror’ and bin Laden became an afterthought that was rarely ever mentioned.
    I'd drop "very" before onset. I'd restructure the 2nd sentence to something along these lines:

    "Administration officials repeatedly implied that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 9/11 attacks, despite there being no evidence of such a connection. Continuing operations in Afganistan and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, meanwhile, were relegated to the rhetorical back burner."

    Or are you looking for something else?

    -Arrian
    grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

    The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

    Comment


    • #3
      Any type of criticism, editing wise and also if you disagree with the points I made.

      Comment


      • #4
        I largely agree, although there is one weakness to the MAD argument:

        That even if Hussein wasn't stupid enough to use nukes, the nukes might somehow get into the hands of some fanatics who would use them. Now I think this is less likely than many people believe, but it *is* a possibility. It's not much of a justification for an invasion, though.

        Nukes, for Saddy, would most likely have been an insurance policy against the US (we don't mess with countries who already have nukes). He could have stayed a happy little dictator doing happy dictator things for the rest of his days.

        ...

        You also use the "North Korea is even worse!" argument, which has its flaws. Yes, NK is bad. Lots of places are. We don't have the capability to invade half the world. Moreover, NK wasn't "doable." Attacking NK would theoretically result in unacceptable damage to SK (not to mention the fact that SK is pursuing the "Sunshine Policy" and would reject a US attack on the North). Iraq was "doable" because it was weak. And obviously people miscalculated about just how "doable" it was.

        ...

        This

        We went from the most sympathized nation on earth directly after September 11th to the most hated within a span of a year. We lost the respect of the world.
        Is a tad hyperbolic. Much of the sympathy was feigned, and not too much of the world respected us anyway. I'd play up the damage to relations with our allies. Most of the M.E. hated us already, and would've continued hating us regardless of Iraq. That being said, the Bush admin's actions made matters worse.

        Just stuff that kinda jumped out at me...

        -Arrian
        grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

        The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

        Comment

        Working...
        X