Terrorism Case
Essay Preview: Terrorism Case
Report this essay
Iraq War
Was it right to invade Iraq?
Preventative Invasion
Responsibility to protect
Democratic Domino theory
Implications
Women
Criminality
Kurds/Civil War
Preventative Invasion
Condoleezza Rice said following 9/11 the lesson was take care of threats early
As YEUN KHONG states Iraq was the case of taking caring of threats early
It was a preventative war, meaning Iraq didnt pose an imminent threat but could potentially in the future
Successive National Intelligence Estimates did mistakenly say Saddam possessed chemical, biological weapons
Was rational therefore based on their adoption of the ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE
This argued that even with a percent chance of a grave threat materialising, the USA should treat that threat as a certainty
JOHN MEARSHEIMER – realist. Argues deterrence would have been sufficient to prevent Saddam obtaining nuclear weapons.
Moreover, as we are now aware that intelligence was false and a more accurate assessment would have seen that Iraq and al-Qaeda were not allies.
The latter were opposed to secular western supported dictators in the Arab world, such as Saddam
NETA CRAWFORD – Further still, Saddam had demonstrated rationality during first Gulf War as he had chosen not to deploy chemical weapons. Was an aggressive act and wasnt proportional
Thus, the reality would conclude Saddam, even if he had possessed WMDs was not a credible threat and thus the invasion was not a rational response
Invaded for humanitarian reasons
None can argue by western standards that human rights abuses werent occurring under Saddam.
However, the rhetoric of Responsibility to Protect only appeared after the fact (ex post facto)
This had led JEREMY MOSES to conclude the invasion had nothing to do with R2P
However, I dont take this assessment to be an accurate assessment either
Humanitarian reasons were used from the outset of the war, including by Tony Blair
Was seen as dealing with brutality and repression
ROTH – was part of the motive but relatively minor
Only 12% of rhetoric study done by MOSES saw key politicians refer to humanitarian reasons. This is in comparison to 82% that referred to security
Without doubt when WMDs werent found this reasoning was used all the more
But the key question, would intervention occurred without human right abuses – undoubtedly yes
There was no danger of genocide or ethnic cleansing
Iraq was far from the only human rights abusing state
Blain reset relations with Gaddafi illustrating this was not a major policy concern
Democratic Domino Theory
Another claim has been that the Iraq invasion inspired the Arab Spring
At the time there was certainly the belief that democratising Iraq would cause a domino effect across the middle east
Little doubt images of Saddam being humanised did contribute to the Arab Spring
Showed vulnerability of Mubarak and Gadhafi
But far from conclusive there is a causal link for all or even the majority.
Democratic domino theory was definitely in minds of USA
Similar to the domino theory with Vietnam
Saw themselves caught up in a war with western hating Islamic ideology
This is too simplistic view of the world
Iraq undoubtedly tied to change of 9/11 but whether it needed to invade to change ideology of Middle East is debatable.
Hoped it could be new tactical base for American interests instead of Saudi Arabia
Hope it would destabilise the real enemy – Iran. Had nuclear weapons programme, as did N. Korea meaning invasion wouldnt be a easily achievable
Implications