Revisiting the Justifications for the Iraq War

Conventional explanations for the 2003 Iraq War are wrong.’ Do you agree

Introduction

In 2003 march, the United States of America invaded Iraq. The war led to the removal of the then Saddam Hussein government. Besides, the crisis continued long after the government was overthrown. From the war, many Iraqis died within the first three years of the invasion. However, in 2011, the US troops were officially withdrawn, though the soldiers were redeployed in 2014 after the territorial gain of the Islamic State in Iraq and the spread of the Syrian war. The purpose of attacking Iraq included uncovering Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, ensuring compliance of Iraq with the UN resolutions, and saving the citizens of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Other reasons included self-defence: by overthrowing Hussein, the world of the future would be safer from terrorist attacks etc. Over the years, the strike created debates especially concerning moral reasoning behind the invasion. The invasion also seems to be a breach of international law. In this paper, I explain why the conventional explanations for the 2003 Iraq War are wrong. If you need assistance with law dissertation help, I'm here to provide expert guidance.

States have the right to defend themselves against invasion or imminent attack on its territory. In their argument, America urged that Baghdad could use the arsenal against its territory and also could link with terrorists to pursue terrorist attacks in the United States and its interest. In a report by Charles Duelfer, Hussein’s need to develop any weapon was based on the concern of Iran and not the US. This is an indication that the invasion was uninformed or made from personal interest. Besides, the report indicates that Saddam had the desire to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD though lacked the ability to create It. This is an indication that, since no weapon was initially developed, the attack was not legitimate. The Duelfer report seems to contradict all prewar claims by the United States. Iraq's ability to produce nuclear weapons was impacted continuously since 1991. Since then, there was no evidence to support that Iraq restarted its nuclear program (Duelfer & Dyson, 2011). Besides, Saddam had destroyed his chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s. This time was long before the United States invasion, which means there was no threat posed to the United States before the attack. Besides, the report also indicates that there was no mounting or immediate danger to the U.S. From the fact that there was no imminent threat, there is no justification to the United States on its self‐defensive preemptive action.

Besides, another reason relates to the context of law enforcement, which links to the UN Security Council resolutions. The UN required Iraq to destroy its weapon programs and withdraw from Kuwait. Therefore, the United States seems to justify their attack in that they were enforcing the UN resolutions by trying to find and as well, eliminate WMD. Washington also revealed that Iraq breached the United Nations obligations to disarm. Therefore, Washington argued that it was obliged to apply force to enforce appropriate resolutions. However, it is notable that, Hussein had expelled United Nation weapons inspectors in 1998, which suggest a clear breach of the United Nations regulations. However, these allegations on the prewar intelligence and postwar failure to find WMD, reveal that the United States administration overstated its issues. Therefore, this indicates that the accusations on Iraq were wrong. Besides, as per the United Nation Security Council, force is only authorized while maintaining the border between Iraq and Kuwait; however, the use of force in the Iraqi disarmament was illegal (Cramer & Duggan, 2012). Besides, it is debatable whether the United Nation Security Council allowed the use of force to eject Saddam from leadership. In my view, the use of force to oust Saddam from power, therefore, was as a result of "hidden triggers."

Moreover, the United States argued that Saddam was a rogue leader who had a human rights violation breach. This argument was among the debate which resulted in the 2003 invasion. This view might provide the basis for the rescue of the Iraqi citizens. However, the United States failed to consider that removing Saddam created even more danger to the people of Iraq. Nevertheless, by March 2003, Saddam could not create a military that would interfere with human rights. A report by Roth reveals that having been affected significantly by the no‐fly zones and sanctions, Saddam could not launch key military operations, characterized by his murderous traits (Mellow, 2006). Therefore, there is no point to justify why the United States attacked Iraq in 2003.

Conclusion

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 raises debate. Some of the reasons for the attack include defence of human rights, preventive self-defence, and law enforcement. However, the war seems to lack empirical and moral reasons. Besides, there is no sufficient and appropriate evidence to justify that the US was in danger as a result of Iraq's action. Also, the attack is unjustified since the UN Security Council's existing mechanisms of legal enforcement were ineffective. Saddam had no weapon of mass destruction since Iraq weapons were destroyed in the 1990s and the fact that Iraq could not resume its military buildup with the then sanctions and its consequences. Also, no justification for a dictatorship that interfered with human rights. Therefore, the reasons given for the invasion were wrong.

Why has the strong US support for Israel in foreign policy survived the fragmentation of the ‘Israel lobby

Introduction

The Israel lobby refers to various individual and coalition of groups which seek to influence the US foreign policy in support of Israel or its foreign policies. It consists of Christian, Jewish America, secular individuals and groups. The lobby boundary cannot be identified or defined precisely (Lobby, 2016). It has a primary role, which encourages the government of the US and its citizens to provide material aid to Jerusalem and to support its policies. The lobby has enhanced the relationship between Washington’s and Jerusalem. The Israel lobby includes both informal and formal factors that influence voting power, campaign donations, education etc. This paper, therefore, discusses why strong US support for Israel in foreign policy survived the fragmentation of the 'Israel lobby.'

The strong US support for Israel in foreign policy survived the fragmentation of the Israel lobby because of coordination with Israeli officials. Israel's government has set aside some officials who are instruments of official governmental Israeli policy. The officials receive government directives and do their best, especially on matters which concern the Jewish community. Therefore, Israel makes great efforts to retain proper terms between the state and the United States. Besides, the strategy attracts broader support compared to any other thing if it represents Israel's interests. However, it is also notable that sometimes, the lobby causes conflict with the Israeli government. Thus, the support of the Israel government indicates why the strong US support for Israel in foreign policy survived the fragmentation of the Israel lobby.

Another factor why the strong US support for Israel in foreign policy survived the fragmentation of the 'Israel lobby' is due to the Christian evangelicals. With the small number of Jewish people in the US, Israel does not rely only on the Jewish community to maintain political and public support. This is because many non-Jewish citizens are also committed to the lobby. Therefore, the alliance of Christian Zionist and Israeli lobbyists gives aid to Israel lobby (Lobby, 2016).

This combined population promotes the survival from the fragmentation of the 'Israel lobby.' Besides the Christian Evangelicals, which has more than 40 million members, also supports the lobby. This view indicates that most American Christians adhere to a literal bible interpretation, which suggests that Jerusalem should possess all the Arab world. Therefore, the support of the Christians promotes government interest to maintain Israel's state as a haven for the global Jewry. Thus, offering assistance to Israel gives value and importance assigned to the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria, which is the modern days' Gaza Strip and which has very great significance to religions. Also, many people in both Israel and America believe that Evangelicals offer an essential source of economic and political assistance. This support is the foundation for the survival of the US support for Israel in foreign policy regardless of the fragmentation of the 'Israel lobby.'

Another reason for the survival of the strong US support for Israel in foreign policy regardless of the fragmentation of the 'Israel lobby' is the national interest perspective. Some of the national interest includes national security as well as the need to respond to domestic circumstance. Therefore, the policy has great significance since they have an immediate impact on decision-making concerning national interest (Gries, 2015). Thus, the Israel Lobby impacts how the two states make policies and the state's policy choices. However, this does not mean that Israel distorts American decisions. The friendly relations between the United States and Israel continue to be a tenet of both American and Israeli foreign policy. Israel usually receives bipartisan support in the US Congress, and the two states seem to share a similar political, economic strategic, and diplomatic concern. The two countries also have been revealed to share military intelligence as well as information. They also corporate while in an attempt to counter international terrorism as well as the illegal drug trade. In return, Israel also provides enormous assistance to the United States, which includes military expertise. However, this relationship has been revealed to damage the relationship between the Arab world and the United States (Gries, 2015). Thus, these national interest makes the United States support for Israel foreign policy regardless of the fragmentation of the Israel lobby

Conclusion

The Israel lobby refers to various individuals and groups which influence America's foreign policy in support of Jerusalem. It comprises many groups, including Christians, Jewish and groups. The lobby promotes the relationship between America and Israel. Some of the reasons why it survives include strong coordination from Israeli officials. Jerusalem government has strong support for the lobby hence making it strong regardless of the fragmentations. Also, it has persisted regardless of the fragmentation because of Christian evangelicals. There is a vast population of Christian who resides in the US Jewish, and Christian Zionist also supports the lobby hence making it strong. Lastly, the national interest perspective makes it still stand firm and affects how the two states make policies and their relation, thus making the lobby strong.

Continue your exploration of Resubmission Protocol for Access to Higher Education Assignments with our related content.

References

Cramer, J.K. and Duggan, E.C., 2012. In pursuit of primacy: why the United States invaded Iraq. na.

Duelfer, CA and Dyson, S.B., 2011. Chronic misperception and international conflict: The

US-Iraq experience. International Security, 36(1), pp.73-100.

Gries, P.H., 2015. How ideology divides American liberals and conservatives over

Israel. Political Science Quarterly, 130(1), pp.51-78.

LOBBY, PI, 2016. THE FRACTURING OF THE. Trouble in the Tribe: The American Jewish Conflict over Israel, p.147.

Mellow, D., 2006. Iraq: A morally justified resort to war. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23(3), pp.293-310.