The United States in 2003 decided to invade Iraq in the hopes of finding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In the eight years that United States’ troops were in Iraq there were serious repercussions for both the United States and Iraq as a result of the invasion. The consequences were mainly due to military, political, social, and economic impacts on a national and global scale. Due to the gargantuan amount of repercussions the United States and Iraq are still in turmoil over the events that occurred from 2003 to 2011. ‘The Invasion of Iraq’ blog is to help the general public understand the implications of the invasion and how some still impact the world today.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
What happened in 2003?
The United States in 2003 decided to invade Iraq in the hopes of finding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In the eight years that United States’ troops were in Iraq there were serious repercussions for both the United States and Iraq as a result of the invasion. The consequences were mainly due to military, political, social, and economic impacts on a national and global scale. Due to the gargantuan amount of repercussions the United States and Iraq are still in turmoil over the events that occurred from 2003 to 2011. ‘The Invasion of Iraq’ blog is to help the general public understand the implications of the invasion and how some still impact the world today.
The background story behind the invasion.
The Invasion of Iraq in 2003 had detrimental consequences
that impacted not only the United States soldiers and government, but also
Iraq’s soldiers, government and civilians. Things such as the death toll, controversy
over reasons for invading, and newfound strains in international relationships
are also part of the many impacts the invasion had on both a national and
global scale. Propaganda from the Bush Administration in 2003 stated: 'The US-led invasion was a necessary
and justified intervention to remove a brutal dictator whose regime threatened
world peace and stability by its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction
and its support for international terrorism.’ (Cogan, 2003). This is what the
United States and George W. Bush released and told the public behind the reason
for invading Iraq, but there are serious doubts that this is the truth.
Source: http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get2/I0000xQHLTeump1U/fit=1000x750/Iraq-U-S-invasion-024.jpg
Repercussions on social and political fields.
Repercussions of the invasion
in terms of political and social fields were extremely high in the years
following the invasion and multiple still exist today. Repercussions ranged
from political related violence in Iraq (Haddad, 2013) to pressure put upon
political parties and forces as a result of the invasion (Hernandez, &
al-Izzi., 2006), Iraq oil production constrained therefore limiting the country’s
economic gain (Nordhaus, 2002), and the total cost of the invasion outweighed
any of the benefits that it created due to the astronomical amount it reached
(Cogan, 2003). For the United States ‘the cost and trauma of the … military
occupation [in Iraq] could be justified because it was the first try to
establish democracy and set up democratic rights’ (Cogan, 2003), this goes
against what Hinnebusch (2007) states ‘The Bush Administration has to clear and
legitimize war on a state that did not threaten the United States’. Both of
these sources clash in ideas, Cogan talks of how the United States were trying
to achieve good despite the economic and political repercussions whereas
Hinnebusch talks about how the United States in fact had no reason to start a
war in the first place, therefore should manage the costs and political
implications as a consequence of their actions. Based on this information it
can be clearly noted that the occupation of Iraq caused gargantuan economic and
political costs to both the United States and Iraq.
Deceiving the United Nations.
Going against permission from the United Nations, the United
States occupied Iraq in 2003. The Bush Administration wanted permission to
enter Iraq for the search of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and to topple
Saddam Hussein’s reign as dictator, although at the time it seems they did more
than this then they told the public (Alkadiri & Mohamedi, 2003). ‘No active
American involvement was at first allowed’ (Jakobsen, 2012) but this changed
when they wished to promote the emergence of a democratic government, people
such as Hanson, MacAskill, and Borger agree that the Iraq War was both illegal
and that motives were in retaliation to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These
sources are all accurate meaning the information is reliable, not bias, and
demonstrates what the public was not told. George W. Bush in 2003 said “America
tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted
to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United
Nations … The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities,
we will rise to ours … Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48
hours … refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time
of our choosing”. These quotes help support the fact that it is evident that
both the United Stated didn’t consider the ongoing repercussions the invasion
would have upon the world today, they consider themselves above the authority
of the United Nations and have taken that power into their own hands and
invaded regardless to what they were advised by such authority. The United
States entered Iraq in 2003 against advice from the United States, the
repercussions of this act is the weakened relationship between the United
Nations and the United States.
Invasion related death toll.
Iraq and the United States had many causalities as a result
of the invasion. Over the many years following the invasion both soldiers and
civilians that were part of the occupation died due to something could have
ultimately been avoided. Numbers around 655 000 (MacKenzie, 2006) are the
estimated number of people to have died since 2003. This signifies the impact
and the amount of deaths caused as a result of the reaction, which ultimately
could have been avoided. When Bush addressed a marginalized number of deaths
this would have been unknown to the public so they would have been unaware of
the devastation. The downplaying of the figure shows how deceitful Bush was
during the occupation. Violence became worst as time went on during the
invasion (Brown, 2006). More than half a million people are dead form invasion
related deaths, the number is upsetting to know that the reason for invading
was also invalid for some time. The number of deaths as a result of the
invasion is a gargantuan repercussion for both countries involved.
Economic and military consequences.
Both Iraq and the United States had a significant loss upon
their military and economic fields. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to an
impact upon military and economic fields. The United States sacrificed a lot in
order to invade Iraq, in terms of economic repercussion and also the now
strained relationship between the United Nations. The debt the United States is
currently in would not be as drastic if they hadn’t of funded $97 million to
opposition forces (Manfreda, 2014). The information I found in this source has
allowed an understanding about how the United States invaded Iraq even against
the United Nations advice. If other countries were to do this as an example of
the US what is the point of the organisation. Without the invasion it can be
assumed that there would not be an as high as there is today (Cogan, 2003).
Also social impacts could be noted because as a result of the US having to pay
for all this they would have to increase costs of living and have taxes to then
pay for it, affecting those residing in the United States.
International relationships.
International relationships changed for Iraq and the United
States during the invasion due to much weakened ties. Why would the United
States not think of the possible repercussions of the invasion, it impacted
upon many countries not just Iraq. The relationship between United States and
the United Nations changed drastically and I am unsure how they could break the
trust of such an influential power for their own selfish benefit (Held, 2011).
Western relationships were strained during the invasion between western powers
and the Islamic world this would be the United States against other opposing
powers (Ulrichsen, 2011). Jesse Helms is a former chairman of the US Senate
Foreign Relations Committee to the UN Security Council, the way in which he
says that the United States can in a way be controlled by anyone else but the
United States. Making excuses for the invasion generally changes my view of the
United States, they are greedy and selfish and this can be noted through
several of the sources I have found, in 2004 he said “No institution – not the Security Council
… - is competent to judge the foreign policy and national security decisions of
the United States”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)