Running Head: THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ 1

War with Iraq

Name

Institution

Professor

Course

Date
THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ 2

The decision to eliminate Saddam extending the war into the Iraq grounds would have

greatly changed the guidelines of not changing the objectives in the main midstream, this kind of

decision forced the occupation of Baghdad and this without doubt made the coalition to collapse.

The poorly connected groups of U.S critics of the defense policy believed that the decision to

remove Saddam Hussein was a big mistake since it was noted that United States was the only

remaining superpower and wanted to expand the defense to international order to security,

prosperity and principles. The writing of an open letter to the president arguing that Saddam was

a major threat to United States destabilizes the force in the Middle East (Stillman, R. (2012).

The disengagement of United States from the rest of the world was Bush’s tendency

during campaign. He completely believed that United States was excessively involved in Middle

East matters. He completely rejected Clintons administration attempts to foster the reconciliation

between them (Pfeiffer, 2005). The decision of bush in the public to pursue Iraq was somewhat

obscure which stated a high levels of generality because of inclusion of Iraq, ran and North

Korea declared that united states will prevent all the regimes that sponsor the terror from the

allies with weapons which are of mass destruction. America was not ready to allow world’s most

dangerous regimes to threaten with most dangerous weapons.

Some of the professionals military started to voice the reservations about United States

plans in attacking Iraq. It is unusual for professional military to see the white house and also was

unusual for their concerns to be aired to the press. The big staff of United States military argued

that Iraq should be approached cautiously; they thought that the invasion would be costly. The

national security advisor wrote a piece which urged them not to attack Saddam because this

would extremely jeopardize the world counterterrorist the campaigns undertaken and this was a

virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq soil at the time (Pfeiffer, 2005).
THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ 3

The secretary in the bush office also uttered reservations on the attacked of Iraq he hinted a

change in regime in Iraq to first occupy the countries military because in doing this the costs all

round would be great he added that united states will need Iraq soon or else suffer greatly to

terrorism (Pfeiffer, 2005).

The leaders of American military have tried to bring a wider focus and began beating the war

rums on the Iraq before even the dust had settled in the world trade center. The president made a

case in America which made it vulnerable to terrorist attacks and made a very hostile condition

between them and Iraq.

As much as the two parties called for the public debate in 2001, U.S failed to balance the public

opinion as most the individuals who attended the launch of the campaign were from US (Pfeiffer,

2005). This decision expressed a lot of unfairness considering, both were expected to give their

ideological contribution on how to plan for the war. This means, the war already had started and

definitely Iraq was to be defeated as it lacked sufficient support and knowledge about the war

plan. The defense secretary strongly maintains that, it was a bit easier to deal with Iraq than

Afghanistan as it was observed from the previous season of war. However, this was more of bear

assumption. The general idea in this decision point, concerns this assumptions which would have

given U.S hard time to prepare for the war.

It was unethical for President George Bush to advocate for the war against the two

countries. Although it was planned at different times, it was actually bad to assume the US was

overpowered to conquer the two nations at once. Even if the issue was to revenge Hussein attack
THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ 4

in America, this would have been handled as individual case rather than the general attack

(Stillman, 2012).  This was a shock to the Iraq citizens as the common civilians were in tension.

It should be understood, terrorism is more of few individuals rather than the whole nation. This

is not only against the individual right but also touches on international humanitarian law which

monitors how civil wars impact civilians.

The bureaucratic system observed in case, overlooked one side. This caused a lot of

unnecessary deaths to the Iran people. There was violation of the war agreement as the US forces

made the attacks outside the big areas where the US attackers used to hide. The forces forgot

their key mission was to search for Saddam Hussein who was attacking the US government

(Pfiffner, 2005). The weapons used by the American troops did not comply with the

humanitarian law. This is because in wars, the moderate war tools must be controlled to avoid

damages to untargeted places or people. The general idea is that, Saddam Hussein was

associated with the terror group and there was need to kill him as a mechanism of terminating the

threats which endangered the Americans. In addition, it took a lot of time for the America to

investigate and obtain the evidence. This further implied unethical issues because; Hussein took

the advantage of hiding. Generally the decisions point made by both parties had errors right from

the start. The key question is what punishment would have awarded to the American troops for

being involved rights violation of the Iraq citizens.

THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ 5

References

Pfiffner, J. P. (2005). The decision to go to war with Iraq. Public Administration: Concepts and

Cases, 203-211.

Stillman, R. (2012). Public administration: Concepts and cases. Cengage Learning.