Why did the Bush administration decide to go to war in Iraq 2003

REASONS FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S INVASION OF IRAQ
Candidate’s Name
Subject’s Name
Subject’s Code
Date
Introduction
In March 2003, the US military started a war in Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. This invasion lasted less than one and half month. It was characterized by conflict between the coalition forces which was made up of the American, Australia, United Kingdom and Poland forces and Iraqi troops. In the end, coalition forces were victorious but at a price of the death toll of approximately 200 soldiers. Military scholars, as well as other critics, have raised several questions on why the US government together with its partners had to invade Iraq. In this paper, the writer asserts that the US invaded Iraq to restructure the Iraqi regime to impose a democratic government as well as liberalize the Middle East states through Iraq and the atmosphere created by the 9/11 as well as 1991 Gulf War precipitated the Iraq attack. Lastly, the US attacked Iraq because Bush administration believed that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Reasons for the US Invasion of Iraq
First, the Bush administration had the view of re-creating a new democratic Iraq’s regime (nation-building) so that rather than Iraq being a problem to the Middle East region it would be a solution to liberalize the region. The US held the view that Saddam’s regime was oppressive to the Iraqis and removing Saddam from power would liberate the people. The US neoconservatives pursued the regime revolution within Iraq neoconservatives even ahead of 9/11 occurrence or the coming into power of Bush regime.

Historically, America supported as well as gave weapons to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq warfare (1980-1988), regardless of his regime’s repression of its citizens. This relationship changed in 1990 when Iraq threatened American interests by its decision to attack Kuwait. It changed its position with the US from the regional partner to danger, particularly to Israel. This made the Bush regime begin the Gulf war, fighting the Iraq soldiers under the UN’s flag. It also imposed several restrictions to Iraq that in consequence nationally toughened Saddam’s status as well as catastrophically affecting the Iraqi citizens. Following the Gulf War victory over the Iraqi soldiers, Bush administration decided not to overthrow Saddam. However, the neoconservatives within the Bush administration such as Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, and Paul Wolfowitz regarded this approach as a squandered chance to affirm America’s hegemony. The neoconservatives’ resistance was demonstrated in the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance where they averred that America ought to exploit the USSR’s fall to affirm its supremacy via raising military expenditure as well as subduing whichever authority that would try to oppose it. In the perception of the neoconservatives who were working in Bush’s administration, the Gulf war had not stopped in a good way due to the American’s failure to overthrow the Iraq’s regime. Therefore, it was the view of these neoconservatives in Bush administration that attacking Iraq was necessary to impose a fresh regime in Iraq. Further, these neocons viewed that the Taliban’s emergence, as well as Saddam’s survival, were due to US’s previous insensitivity of not pursuing him at the time of the Gulf war. According to them, this approach was not to be re-done in Iraq. Thus, the US believed it was going to do the correct thing by establishing a democratic regime which would see the ending of Saddam’s violence and killings as well as compel other Middle East states to liberalize. Had President Bush stated beforehand that the US would leave Iraq after dethroning Saddam, or put a less brutal person as the Iraq president, maybe he could not have got Congress’ approval to attack Iraq. The invasion was promoted partially based on liberal ideas of doing the correct thing which was not done during the Gulf War.
Secondly, Bush administration claimed Saddam Hussein had WMD. Bush openly pointed out his choice to attack Iraq during his 2002 State of the Union address. He affirmed that America should “stop governments which support terror from intimidating it or its allies using WMD… America shall not allow the globe’s very dangerous governments to intimidate it with the world’s very damaging arsenal…” America alleged with a conviction that Iraq had chemical as well as biological weaponry as asserted by Bush in September 2002 that “Saddam has both biological as well as the chemical arsenal and he is constructing amenities needed to manufacture more of these stockpiles.” It is true that the country possessed WMD during the 1980s because the US supplied a few of the resources to make them, and Iraq used the weapons to attack Iran and the Kurds. However, during the Iraq war, WMD were not found, even with thorough search by the American army together with the Iraq Survey Group. Whereas American leaders alluded to the convincing agreements of the bipartisan decisions as the reasons for attacking Iraq such as Iraq being a shelter for extremists and that Saddam had perpetrated atrocities against the Kurds as well as disobeyed the UN sanctions, the US was rather obsessed with allegedly flawless intelligence on WMD. This view was also held by other Middle East states as well as European intelligence bodies. However, the focus on WMD was a crucial political blunder due to the lack of the alleged WMD. There were public uproars on the missing weapons, but the American government seemingly supposed that, without the WMD reason, the other grounds for the attack would not produce adequate public support to attack Iraq.
Thirdly, the atmosphere created by 9/11 as well as the Gulf War events precipitated the invasion. The American government contended that after the 9/11 occurrence, there ought not to be a delayed attack of Saddam’s regime. They averred that Saddam was supporting terrorism, had in the past attacked its neighboring states, as well as murdered thousands of its citizens. Therefore, they viewed Saddam’s regime as a danger to the US, Middle East, and the Iraqis. The US government implied that Saddam was linked to the 9/11 terror attack. After the 9/11 attack, CNN conducted a survey which established that 78% of Americans believed Saddam to be involved in the attack. Since 9/11 to the start of the Iraq invasion, the American government sharply implied an existence of an association between Saddam’s regime with the al Qaeda terror group. They held this view even with Al Qaeda leader’s (Bin Laden) disrespect for Saddam Hussein because he perceived Saddam as a leader of a secular nation. Further, the ending of the Gulf War resulted not in the dethroning of Saddam, but to the killing of the Kurds as well as Shiites by Saddam. The 12-year no-fly zone restrictions in the region saw an increase in conflict. These restrictions were later not being enforced by international bodies and Saddam rapidly reclaimed his regional prominence. In the US, several planners of the Gulf War were again in the Bush government and several of them were regretful how the Gulf War ended without overthrowing Saddam. The feeling of the desire to fix this blunder became very compelling following the 9/11 attack. However, some critics have asserted that there was no association between Saddam and Bin Laden and if a person removes the security concerns after 9/11, the US would not have attacked Saddam. Similarly, had the ending of the Gulf War been different, or the UN fully continued to implement the no-fly zone restrictions, American would not have attacked Iraq. Therefore, Iraq invasion was founded on the belief that the previous battle with Saddam was a failure and restraint would also be unsuccessful, and the period following the 9/11 offered a suitable opportunity to terminate a supporter of terrorism.
Conclusion
The Iraq attack caused the arrest of Saddam as well as the overthrowing of his regime. This war had two major players: the Iraq and the coalition forces led by the United States. Even though other countries within the coalition force performed their duties during the fight, the US was the principal player. It is the US that initiated the attack, but why? In this paper, the writer has asserted that the US attacked Iraq because the Bush administration believed that Saddam harbored WMD, the events of terrorist attack in 9/11 and the Gulf War precipitated the war and lastly, the Bush’s administration wanted to rebuild Iraq through imposition of a democratic government and liberalized the Middle East states through Iraq.
Bibliography
Chomsky, Noam. “Iraq is a trial run.” (2003a). http://philpapers.org/rec/CHOIIAChomsky, Noam. Hegemony Or Survival? London: Hamish Hamilton, 2003b.
Chesterman, Simon. “Bush, the United Nations and nation-building.” Survival 46, no. 1 (2004): 101-116. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Chesterman/publication/233204825_Bush_the_United_Nations_and_Nation-building/links/02e7e521428c4d1d4a000000.pdf
Dolan, Chris J., and David B. Cohen. “The War About the War: Iraq and the Politics of National Security Advising in the GW Bush Administration’s First Term.” Politics & Policy 34, no. 1 (2006): 30-64. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris_Dolan2/publication/229750629_The_War_About_the_War_Iraq_and_the_Politics_of_National_Security_Advising_in_the_GW_Bush_Administration’s_First_Term/links/553fec2d0cf2736761c25c05.pdf
Dunne, Michael. “The United States, the United Nations and Iraq:‘multilateralism of a kind’.” International Affairs 79, no. 2 (2003): 257-277.
Khong, Yuen Foong. “Neoconservatism and the Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: The Role of Ideas in Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Foreign Policy, edited by Tony Smith et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2008).
Pfiffner, James P. “The Decision to Go to War with Iraq” Public Administration: Concepts and Cases, 8th edition (2010): 1-13. http://pfiffner.gmu.edu/files/pdfs/Book_Chapters/Bush%20Iraq%20War%20Decision,%202010.pdf