Impacts of the 2003 Iraq War

Impacts of the 2003 Iraq contendThe impact of the 2003 Iraq strugglef atomic number 18 on both the war on consternationand the prospects for peace in the set eastsideIntroductionThe reasons for the U.S. led war in Iraq in 2003 were numerous and, as it turns out, rather complicated. But, for better or worse, the U.S. led coalition of nations invaded Iraq with hurt and awe in 2003. This war in Iraq was conducted under the banner of the war on terror. This help U.S. led military endeavor into Iraq had a bivalent cathexis, which was combative and aggressive on the one hand, and more conciliatory and democratizing on the other. These were the original intentions. The questions to be explored in this paper revolve around these multiple aspects of the 2003 Iraq war. How has it affected the overall and global war on terror, and has it achieved a assess of peace and stability in the middle(a) East?From the radical of the young U.S. led war efforts in Iraq, there has been a tw ofold mission an nonced by hot seat George W. scrub. The archetypical mission is centered in the war against all terrorists and those who harbor terrorist organizations.1 The second has been the desire to plant the rootage of democracy in the Middle East a desire which the chairwoman hoped might flourish into an eventual, sustaining peace. In his 2002 secernate of the Union address, President Bush said, We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.2 In this line, his commitment to a war against terror is evident, but so is his desire to help bring about a peaceful world. The actually name of the military offensive dubbed by the Bush Administration was Operation Iraqi Freedom.A Just fight and the fate of PeaceIn all novel discussions of Just War theories, recognition is united at least in the aspect of the theory that involves the take on at peace following the war. That is, no war flush toilet be considered just if the winner merely walks away from the los er of a presumptuousness war without any attempt to bring about a quantity of stability, security, and peace. Much of this reasoning has to do with the ideas bound up within the just-war usance. in that respect be many scholars, secular, Catholic, and otherwise, writing within this tradition, as it pertains to the 2003 Iraq war. As George Weigel nones in a recent audition, in the writings of contemporary scholars in this tradition (e.g., James Turner Johnson and Michael Walzer), one encounters the essence of an approach to war that is commensurable with the U.S. Presidents intentions expressed above.To aim in a war justly is non only to fight those forces of evil that seek to master or corrupt ones society, nor is it merely about how nations ought to engage in warfare. Although those are considerations brought to bear on just-war theorizing, the fundamental underpinning of this approach to thinking about war is ultimately about the peace we seek to r from each one in co ntrast to the war the terrorists gull set in motion.3 That is, the overarching final stage in all wars (including the war on terror) should be the eventual achievement, non merely of removing immediate threats to national security or of pacification of an enemy, of victimization war as an instrument to establish peace in a land. Peace brings prosperity, whereas continual war and factionalism never bring about show up or prosperity only suffering which seems endless to those affected by it.The Successes, Trials and Tribulations of the WarPerhaps because we are quench so near the beginning of the war and because the operation continues to this moment, it is difficult to gauge the relative achiever of the war efforts themselves and as regards the broader war on terror. In fact, the situation today is still the globe that the success or failure of the war depends largely on who you ask. The war effort has been a politically polarizing issue, which has certainly affected the press , as well as the bookish community. A simple survey of the books on the shelves to the articles and essays within journals will reveal this truth. It is therefore nighwhat difficult to call for a proper understanding of exactly what the ramifications of the 2003 Iraq war may be for the broader war on terror, but there is at least some consensus in a few areas useful for exploration in this regard. on that point are those who, like Charles Hill, can find little more than wide-reaching success in the current war efforts. He writes, Iraq is moving toward the full authenticity that Saddam ibn Talal Hussein stole from the Iraqi people. Sovereignty has been restored, free elections have been held, and a constitution has been approved.4 The press and other scholars have, on the other hand, not been so friendly in their detractions and perceptions of the war efforts. The Reviews Responses section of recent interlingual renditions of the journal orthogonal personal matters have been f illed with review essays of books very diminutive of the war.5 Sometimes the reviews are sympathetic often times they are not. exclusively of this is supportive of the difficult task ahead of scholars regarding the effort to appropriate the hubris from the veracity of what implications the 2003 Iraq war may have for peace and the larger war on terror. There is no denying the success of disposing of the Taliban in Afghanistan and of Saddam Hussein and his administration in Iraq. This success was decisive, dramatic, and, in the words of sea captain Davis Hanson, audacious.6 Both of these regimes were lawfully argued to have been the most oppressive and potentially dangerous in the region. This is maybe one of the most compelling reasons adhered to by most Americans originally bread and butter both war efforts. The question on the minds of most in the scholarly community is whether there was adequate planning for the immediate post-war environment.7However, even for those who were very supportive of the sign decision to invade Iraq, recent events over the last year at least, have been sobering. In an article written for the April edition of the journal First Things, George Weigel identifies four distinct wars that have constituted the wide Iraq war since 2003. The offset printing war was the obvious one of deposing Saddam Hussein and creating conditions for the responsible establishment of an interim government and relative stability. This war was reason quickly and successfully, most all scholars agree. The second war erupted shortly laterwards the first had ended, and this one was against the Baathist loyalists and recalcitrants. The third war broke out as Jihadists (i.e., al-Qaeda in Iraq) began to flood into Iraq through the under-watched and unprotected borders and tried to crash the democracy being established there as well as drive out the infidels from the Gulf. The fourth, and perhaps most dangerous today, is the practical courtly war tha t broke out in earnest between Sunnis insurgents and Shia militias by and by the bombing of a major Shia shrine in February, 2006. Weigel argues that only the first of these four wars has ended. The other three continue to this day and overlap each other.8 Is it possible that the U.S. led coalition could have hollerd these mini-wars which followed the success of the first? Is it probable that the coalition did all it could to establish a peaceful, post-war environment?reconstructive memory ChallengesOne of the sharpest criticisms of the 2003 Iraq war, even by those who originally supported it, is that there was not enough planning in terms of rebuilding the nation after the decisive defeat of the Iraqi military. First, by any reasonable standards, the enumerate committed to the reconstruction of Iraq after the war was not virtually enough. In hindsight, all seem to recognize this. Though the intentions of the Bush Administration were admirable in that they sought the just-war a pproach, which was to replace the dangerous regime with democracy, granting immunity, and a re-built nation, the reality was that through the combination of inadequate funds and bloated bureaucracy, the U.S. did not adequately anticipate what would naturalistically be needed to bring their intentions about.9 George Weigel points out that only $2.5 one thousand thousand had been originally budgeted for reconstruction assistance, and this was far away from the actual amount needed, addicted the dilapidated state of the nation due to Saddams misgovernment and a decade of U.N. sanctions.10Peace through Civil War?The war created what most analysts have agreed to be a political vacuum. at a time the rule of Saddam Hussein was done away with, there was not a quick enough turnaround time for a newborn and, perhaps most importantly, legitimized ruling government. The largest looming danger now is the risk of well-bredian war in Iraq, which will almost certainly follow from the near-fu ture separation of U.S. forces from the country, as most scholars agree. Especially if the United States withdraws from Iraq, the odds are darling that a military coup in which some subset of the Iraqi phalanx leadership declares that the elected government is not working and that a surd hand is necessary to impose order will result.11 As alluded to above, the civil war began to erupt after the bombing of the Shia holy site in February, 2006. At this point, it seems that the Sunni minority in Iraq, which has been a constant trouble from nearly the beginning, is only exacerbating its violence against the Shia to the south. Under the self-styled leadership of Muqtada al-Sadr, the sundry(a) Shia militia forces have engaged in gross acts of terror in return.12 bunko gameclusionIn a recent article, Victor Davis Hanson takes a realistic approach to the successes in Iraq. They cannot be underplayed, nor devalued. The overturning of the Iraqi regime, which was the main goal of the war, was achieved and likely the world is better for it. On the other hand, in retrospect the post-war event was not fully appreciated until it was far too late. Three separate wars therefore erupted, and the most significant (the civil war) looms on the not-too-distant horizon. The prospects for peace are still available to the Middle East but only with properly calculated U.S. led coalition strategy for the future. If nothing else, the various shortcomings of the recent war will hopefully serve as a corrective and impetus to future successes in the war on terror. Successes have occurred, to be sure, but so have enormous challenges to peace, world-wide.BibliographyBottum, Joseph, and Michael noneak. The Leadership of George W. Bush Con Pro. First Things. March, 2007, No. 171, pp. 31-35.Diamond, Larry. The Pressure Builds. hoover Digest. 2006, No. 3, pp. 21-29.Dobriansky, Paula J., Henry A. Crumpton, and F. Gregory Gause III. totalism and Terror Will Democracy in the Middle East flip Us Safer? Foreign Affairs. Jan/Feb, 2006. Vol 85, No. 1, pp. 135-138.Fearon, James D. Iraqs Civil War. Foreign Affairs. Mar/Apr, 2007. Vol. 86, No. 2, pp. 2-15.Feldman, Noah. What We Owe Iraq War and the Ethics of Nation Building. Princeton and Oxford Princeton University Press, 2004.Hanson, Victor Davis. Five Years On. Hoover Digest. 2006, No. 4, pp. 82-86.Hanson, Victor Davis. Hard Pounding. Hoover Digest. 2006, No. 3, pp. 10-17.Hill, Charles. The Rogues are Losing Why the Rogues of the Middle East Have a Very Short Future. Hoover Digest. 2005, No. 4, pp. 66-68.Kagan, Frederick W. Iraq is not Vietnam. Policy Review. Dec, 2005 Jan, 2006, No. 134, pp. 3-14.Weigel, George. Just War and Iraq Wars. First Things. April, 2007, No. 172, pp. 14-20.Yoo, John. The Powers of War and Peace The temperament and Foreign Affairs after 9/11. dough and London University of moolah Press, 2005.11 These commitments are very readily found in his 2002, 2003 and 2004 State of the Union addresses , as well as in his Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, given on phratry 20, 2001. All of these speeches are available at http//www.whitehouse.gov.2 It would seem that there are few who disagree with the Presidents intentions in this regard. Renowned Middle East scholar, Bernard Lewis has long argued that the war on terror and the search for freedom are bound up the one with the other. The two must equal side by side and cannot exist one without the other. NYU law professor Noah Feldman argues that the most defensible account of our nation-building policies in Iraq 20034, and the standard to which future U.S. efforts should be held, is the production of a basically legitimate, functioning democracy there. What We Owe Iraq War and the Ethics of Nation Building (Princeton and Oxford Princeton University Press, 2004), p. 20.3 George Weigel, Just War and Iraq Wars, First Things, April, 2007, no. 172, p. 14. Weigel is here quoting James Turner Johnson.4 Cha rles Hill, The Rogues are Losing Why the Rogues of the Middle East Have a Very Short Future, Hoover Digest. 2005, no. 4, p. 68. In this same essay, he goes on to point out the various ramifications of the initial stages of success of the Iraq war Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon all having positive moves and reactions to the strength of the initial war in 2003. Libyas decision to give up its armory is probably the most dramatic ramification of the initial successes of the war that supporters can point to, as Hill does in his essay.5 The January/February 2006 edition of Foreign Affairs is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Every single review essay of that edition deals with the Iraq war.6 Five Years On. Hoover Digest, 2006, no. 4, p. 84. Regarding the progress work by the Iraq war, Hanson writes, thousands of terrorists killed, Al Qaeda scattered, Europe galvanized about Islamism and sobered about the consequences of its moth-eaten anti-U.S. rhetoric, Irans nuclear antics revea led, democracy birthed in the Middle East, Palestinian radicals undetermined for their fraud, the United nations under overdue scrutiny, America much better defended at home came largely as a result of the war on terror, beginning with Afghanistan and culminating in Iraq. There is much significant impact there to be pondered.7 Victor Davis Hanson, Hard Pounding, Hoover Digest, 2006, no. 3, pp. 14-15.8 Weigel, Just War and Iraq Wars, p. 15. Frederick W. Kagan agrees with this assessment of the various wars being fought in Iraq, although he believes that Weigels second war largely ended with the capture of Saddam Hussein. Cf. Iraq is Not Vietnam, Policy Review, Dec, 2005 Jan, 2006, no. 134, p. 6.9 Although, to be fair, it should be pointed out that former depository of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, did anticipate that the cost of military operations and rebuilding efforts would amount to $3.9 one thousand million per month in 2003. Cf. John Yoo, The Powers of War and Peace The temper and Foreign Affairs after 9/11 (Chicago and London University of Chicago Press, 2005), p. 157.10 Weigel, p. 17.11 James D. Fearon, Iraqs Civil War, Foreign Affairs, Mar/Apr, 2007, vol. 86, no. 2, p. 6. For concord opinions see Larry Diamond, The Pressure Builds, Hoover Digest, 2006, no. 3, p. 29 and Weigel, p. 19.12 Diamond, The Pressure Builds, pp. 26-8.