Iraq final paper Essay

            The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, Britain, Australia and Poland officially began on March 20, 2003.

U.S. President George W. Bush stated that the objective of the invasion was “to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people”.In preparation, 100,000 U.S. troops were assembled in Kuwait by February 18. The United States supplied the majority of the invading forces.

Supporters of the invasion included a coalition force of more than 40 countries, and Kurds in northern Iraq. The invasion of Iraq encountered immense popular opposition. Between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war. The 2003 invasion began the Iraq War.[1]            Prior to the 2003 invasion, the diplomatic steps undertaken by the United States were on March 17, 2003 when President Bush delivered his address. In his address, President Bush demanded Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay to surrender and leave Iraq after the 48-hour deadline.

However, Hussein and his sons failed to accept the offer and maintained that it had disarmed as required. Meanwhile, the UN weapons inspectors headed by Hans Blix requested more time to analyze whether Iraq has fully complied with its obligation to disarm as embodied in UN Security Resolution 1441. However, Blix had been in doubt should the UN lift the sanctions, Iraqi government would start the reproduction of the weapons again. On the other hand, United Kingdom and the United States still failed to acquire the resolution allowing the use of force against Iraq.

            Although this has been the case, the diplomatic solutions posted by the United States are not enough to wage war against Iraq. In fact, the member-states of UN all failed to accept such an idea to wage war against it. The invasion of Iraq did not have the support of the UN. Clearly, this manifests that all positive soltuions has not been sought or exhanusted by the United States.            Throughout 2002, the Bush administration made clear that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a major goal. The principal stated justifications for this policy of “regime change” were that Iraq’s alleged production of weapons of mass destruction and purported ties to terrorist organizations  amounted to an imminent threat to the United States and the world community. Bush’s advisers, notably Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz even went as far as alleging that the Hussein government was responsible for the September 11 attacks.

The overall rationale for the invasion was outlined by Secretary of State Colin Powell  in his February 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council.[2]            Secretary Powell said that Saddam Husssein was’ determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction.’ He added that given Saddam Hussein’s history of aggression, his  terrorist associations and his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, The United States should not take the risk that he will use these weapons in the future at a time when all the countries in the world are in a weaker position to counter such an attack.            Since the invasion, U.S.

and British claims concerning Iraqi weapons programs  and links to terrorist organizations  have been called into serious question. While the debate of whether Iraq intended to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons remains open, no major stockpiles of WMDs  have been found in Iraq since the invasion despite comprehensive inspections lasting more than 18 months Similarly, assertions of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have largely been discredited by the intelligence community and were eventually retracted by Secretary Powell himself.[3]            However it has been said that the United States and the British government only fabricated evidence s with regard to the weapons of mass destruction allegedly owned by the Iraqi government as well as its terrorists associations.

            Most notably, opponents of the invasion have accused the Bush administration of relying on knowingly fraudulent evidence in asserting that the Hussein government had sought to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger  Accusations that the invasion was fought on false pretenses were strengthened by the 2005 release of the so-called Downing Street Memo a secret British document summarizing a 2002 meeting among British political, intelligence, and defense leaders. According to the memo, Chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service  Sir Richard Dearlove  claimed that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”[4]            As evidence supporting U.S. and British claims about Iraqi WMDs and links to terrorism weakened, supporters of the invasion have increasingly shifted their justification to the human rights violations of the Hussein government Leading human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch  have argued, however, that human rights concerns were never a central justification for the invasion, nor was military intervention justifiable on humanitarian grounds, most significantly because “the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention.

“[5]            Notwithstanding the stated justifications for the invasion, critics of the Bush Administration have also argued that the true motives included ensuring U.S. access to Iraqi oil and long term U.

S. dominance in the Middle East Bush Administration officials have vehemently denied these claims.[6]            Meanwhile, this campaign featured a variety of new terminology, much of it initially coined by the U.S. government or military. The military official name for the invasion, “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, is rarely used outside the United States. Also notable was the usage “death squads” to refer to feyadeen paramilitary forces. Members of the Saddam Hussein government were called by disparaging nicknames like “Chemical Ali”, “Baghdad Bob” or “Comical Ali” and “Mrs.

Anthrax” or “Chemical Sally”. Saddam Hussein was systematically referred to as “Saddam”, which some Westerners mistakenly believed to be disparaging. Although there is no consensus about how to refer to him in English, “Saddam” is acceptable usage, and is how people in Iraq and the Middle East generally refer to him.

Many slogans and terms coined came to be used by Bush’s political opponents, or those opposed to the war. For example, in April 2003 John Kerry, the candidate in the presidential elections, said at a campaign rally: “What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States.” Other war critics use the name “Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)” to subtly point out the cause of the war, such as the song Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) by David Rovics, a popular folk protest singer. Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.) was the original name for the 2003 invasion.[7]            Compared with the Persian Gulf War in 1991, no monicker has been used for the military invention beingused by the American forces.

Opponents of military intervention in Iraq have attacked the decision to invade Iraq along a number of lines, including calling into question the evidence used to justify the war, arguing for continued diplomacy, challenging the war’s legality suggesting that the U.S. had other more pressing security priorities, and predicting that the war would destabilize the Middle East region. The breadth and depth of the criticism was particularly notable in comparison with the first Gulf War, which met with considerably less domestic and international opposition.            The United States Department of the Treasury, through its Office of Technical Assistance (OTA), provides comprehensive financial advice around the world. OTA’s expert advisors work directly with foreign governments to support their efforts to improve their financial systems.

A number of these countries are involved in the transition from state-controlled to market-based economies, some are developing nations that are attempting to develop the capacity to better meet the needs of their populations, while others are emerging from periods of internal or external conflict. The Office also engages in financial reconstruction and stabilization efforts for countries emerging from conflict or those that are considered to be failed states. It also consists of five core areas which include: Budget Policy and Management, Financial Institutions Policy and Regulation, Government Debt Issuance and Management, Financial Enforcement and Tax Policy and Administration.

The Treasury Department fulfills its responsibilities in technical assistance primarily through the placement of resident and intermittent advisors. Long-term, resident advisors provide advice and training to Ministers of Finance, Central Bank Governors, and other government officials. Short-term, intermittent advisors provide highly specialized assistance, as necessary.            As the contours of a market based financial sector slowly begin to emerge, Treasury’s technical assistance program is poised to guide financial institutions to adopt policies and procedures which allow for continued and sustainable growth. In these changing financial environments, government institutions must adopt substantially different policies and procedures, and develop their human capital, in order to play an effective role in market economies. Experienced advisors from the United States and other countries provide invaluable assistance in this process.[8]            Meanwhile, USAID provides a focused approach to essential issues, addressing the root causes of instability and building the foundation for a prosperous Iraq. It bridges the transition from the short-term provision of essential services to long-term, integrated, and Iraqi-led development.

USAID’s overarching goal is to contribute to stability and security as part of the U.S. government National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. In addition, USAID is a key element of the United States plan for victory in Iraq. Emphasizing responsiveness and sustainability, USAID/Iraq’s new strategy calls for an expanded role in supporting focused stabilization, establishing the foundation for economic growth, and building national capacity.

These efforts, in the short-term, will help stabilize areas impacted by the insurgency and mitigate the appeal of insurgent recruitment efforts. Over the longer term, the establishment of democratic institutions and sustainable economic development will form the foundations of a stable, democratic, and prosperous Iraq.[9]            However, the military operations of the United States are not at all approved by most states. There have been many criticisms that the evidences used to justify the war because many opponents of military intervention objected on the grounds that a diplomatic solution would be preferable, and that war should be reserved as a truly last resort. This position was exemplified by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who responded to Colin Powell’s February 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N Security Council by saying that: “Given the choice between military intervention and an inspections regime that is inadequate because of a failure to cooperate on Iraq’s part, we must choose the decisive reinforcement of the means of inspections.            One of the central questions in the lead-up to the war was whether the United Nations Security Council would authorize military intervention in Iraq, thus providing international legitimacy to the war.

When it became increasingly clear that U.N. authorization would require significant further weapons inspections, and that the U.S.

and Britain planned to invade Iraq regardless, many criticized their effort is unwise, immoral, and illegal. Robin Cook, then the leader of the British House of Commons and a former foreign secretary, resigned from Tony Blair’s cabinet in protest over Britain’s decision to invade without the authorization of a U.N. resolution. Cook said at the time that: “In principle I believe it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international support. In practice I believe it is against Britain’s interests to create a precedent for unilateral military action.

”  United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, put a sharper point on Cook’s objection, stating in September 2004 that, “From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it (the war) was illegal.”[10]            Given the facts earlier stated, the actions made by the United States was worthy enough for the whole world to be saved from the terrorist attacks can be done by Saddam Hussein. With the intervention of the United States, weapons of mass destruction as well as potential dangers to be committed by the Iraqi government have been prevented. Apart from their goal of protecting the lives of their people, the United States in effect has proved that it can eliminate those negative forces even if all the other nations may pose opposition to their acts. Although the military intervention may costs millions of dollars in order to be achieved, still the United States did not plainly ignore these worldwide phenomena that can bring about big destruction to all the people in the world.WORKS CITED:“Mission Statement” (2006) US Treasury Department.

Retrieved 26 April 2007 from website“2003 Invasion of Iraq”. (2006) Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 26 April 2007 from website http:en/wikipedia/wiki/2003_invasion_of_iraq,htm“USAID in Iraq” (2006). USAID official website.

Retrieved 26 April 2007 from website:[1] “2003 Invasion of Iraq”. Wikipedia: The Free Encylopedia:1[2] Ibid.[3] Ibid.[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.[6] Ibid.[7] Ibid.

[8] “Mission Statement”.[9] “USAID in Iraq” http://www.usaid.

gov/iraq/:1[10] “2003 Invasion of Iraq”. Wikipedia: The Free Encylopedia:1