By: Owen Butler Political Science student at Northern Virginia Community College
Amid the beginnings of a new century, The United States of America and its coalition forces invaded Iraq on the means of taking out its dictator Saddam Hussein and implementing democracy. In time, this war would prove itself to be one of the most controversial campaigns in present day American history. The Bush administration accused Iraq of working with Al-Qaeda terrorists and harboring “Weapons of Mass Destruction”.The then-President, George W. Bush said the war would “Defend the world from grave danger”(Reuters). However, the subsequent years would verify just how irrational the war and its bloodshed was. This essay will demonstrate how unjustified the conflict was, shining a light on the faulty intelligence, lack of global support, and the resulting death and destruction.
Following the Al-Qaeda September 11 attacks, Americans were very fearful and wanted retaliation for the almost 3,000 Americans who had died. The Bush administration knew tying Osama Binladen (the leader of Al-Qaeda) and Saddam Heussein together would immensely vindicate any military action towards Iraq. Government officials like Vice President Richard Cheney would be saying in speeches that Saddam “aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al-Qaeda”(Pan). Along with VP Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powel would say in a UN speech, “Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawri, an associate and collaborator of Osama BinLaden and his Al-Qaeda operatives…”(Powell). While these claims were being made, officials were looking into the connection. National security council member Richard Clarke made a special program to investigate, and came back with the conclusion that all evidence found was weak and anecdotal(Battle). Along with this, The CIA had deduced that Al-Qaeda and Iraqi government members had interacted very scarcely. This shows that the government was relying on shaky evidence to gain support for the Iraq war.
In the lead up to the Iraq Invasion in 2003, the phrase “WMD” was continuously emerging in speeches from top government officials. It was being portrayed that Saddam Heussein had developed biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons with the aim of deploying them on the rest of the world. Behind the scenes however, These claims were being investigated and failing to show any legitimacy. For one, The UN had been monitoring Iraq for decades and continuously checked for any stockpiles of “WMD”. The UN also followed trails of alleged “purchasing of aluminum tubes in Niger For use on nuclear weapons” and came back with no credible evidence. The Bush administration was ignoring these revelations, since pushing the war’s legitimacy mattered more than the truth. In the end, the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group was charged with finding the supposed weapons of mass destruction during the war. To this day they have no been able to present any stockpiles of “WMD”
The more countries you have on your side peddling a foreign invasion, the more sound that invasion looks. The Bush administration knew this and worked tirelessly to get the United nations support. The US had gained overwhelming support from the UK and its Prime minister Tony Blair, while countries like Germany and France had their own digressions. Former French President Jaques Chirac was not convinced Iraq was a global threat and that military intervention was needed. He appropriately felt a conflict would immensely destabilize the Middle-east. The Former Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schoder had very similar sentiments with France on the Invasion. Other countries that did not support the war were: Canada, Mexico, China, Russia, Find land, Sweden, Norway, and New Zealand. These countries were willing to risk degrading relations with the US, because of how erroneous an invasion of Iraq would be. It is not foolish to assume a Justified war would bring forth more support from outside Developed countries.
Many defenders of the Iraq war argue that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was well worth the cost, and saved Iraq and the world from disaster. They point to Saddam’s long extensive list of aggressive military intervention and war crimes, these include: Murdering and Imprisoning innocent civilians, murdering 200,000 Kurdish civilians, using chemical weapons on the Iraq population, Destroyed marshlands and creating an environmental disaster(French). Paul Wolfowitz is one who is of this opinion, saying “ I think if we had Saddam or one of his sons in power in Iraq today, we would be seeing a much worse world.”(OxfordUnion). Utilizing a hypothetical disaster to justify the very real destruction of Iraq is an immoral and an idiotic argument. The US started a war to stop a man who murdered 200,000 civilians, and in doing so murdered 200,000 civilians. Iraq now is a volatile democracy with a debilitating corruption problem. The region since the war has been plagued with violence and Jihadist Terrorist groups propped up by the Instability from the US-Iraq war. Many Iraqis look back at the pre war era with a sense of nostalgia, one civilian says “Those who came after haven’t improved the infrastructure, they haven’t built anything, they haven’t done anything.”.
Ultimately, The Iraq war was an entirely unjustified conflict. The Bush administration used flawed intelligence to knowingly mislead a generation of broken Americans after 9/11 to support the campaign. They had proliferated unverified claims of Saddam Hussein harboring “Weapons of Mass Destruction” and protecting and working with Al-Qaeda. They struggled to acquire support from powerful UN allies. Supporters of the war will claim the ends justify the means and that Saddam Hussein no longer leading Iraq is an overall positive. However, destroying a country and murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians all based on lies is not a fair price to pay for one man’s life. As a country, we need to address the atrocity that was the Iraq war and bring those responsible to justice.