Iraq War: US Armed Conflict 2003-2011 - Essay Sample

Introduction

The Iraqi War is one of the armed conflicts that started in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by the United States-led coalition. Fundamentally, the mission of the war supposed to end the dictatorial regime of the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein (Walgrave & Rucht, 2010). Research has shown that the 2003 invasion emerged as the most prolonged, most significant and most costly use of the armed force by the United States since the Vietnam War (Anderson, 2011). As part of the armed conflict, an estimated 151,000 to 600,000 Iraqi were killed on the first three to four years of the conflict (Walgrave & Rucht, 2010). While US troops were officially withdrawn from Iraq in 2011, analysts have continued to mention that the Iraqi War was the first significant post-cold war military action that had involved the US in its efforts to occupy power in the Middle Eastern nation (Walgrave & Rucht, 2010).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Although the invasion of the decision is placed in some aspects of the single factors, with a particular emphasis on the US military involvement in an Arab or Muslim country, there has been a contention that US invasion of Iraq was not a Sui generis and can, therefore, be explained with reference to the established causes of war (Anderson, 2011). This article thus provides an analysis regarding how theories concerning the causes of war explain US decisions to understand the conflict.

It also traces the relationship between the theoretical perspectives. The theoretical section of the paper will discuss the research problem, research question, and the debate that exists about the causes of the problem (Iraq War), and the comparison of the points of view of the two sources.

Research Problem

To explain the causes of war, Stephen Van Evera proposes the offense-defense theory. Fundamentally, the theory contends that a state's relative ease of attack and defense offers a powerful predictor of war initiation and international conflict. Specifically, the theory mentions that when offensive military operations are disadvantaged, the internal conflict of the war become more likely or possible.

Contrary, the defensive advantages reduces the likelihood of the war. A closer look at this theory reveals that it provides an optimistic perspective of an international politics based on the argument the war can be prevented in any case the defense gains an advantage over the offense. It further holds that a properly executed arms control can play a critical role in reducing the risks of races and war.

For the defensive purposes, the state can build its military capability. Based on the fact that the two are unaware of each other's intentions, another state may interpret a defensive buildup as offensive. In the cases whereby the offensive action against a state that only focuses on its defenses is advantageous, then the other party can decide to mount an aggressive stance, leading to war.

Research Question

In the article by Evera (1998), the author presents several research questions that help understand the overall issue of the war causes, such as:

• Is war more likely when conquest is easy?
• Could peace can be strengthened by making conquest more difficult.
• What are the causes of offense dominance?
• What are the best approaches to control these causes?

Regarding these research questions, Evera summarizes that the technical capabilities of a state and its geographical regions are two critical factors that determine the decision on whether the offensive or defensive action present certain advantages (Evera 1998). In his view, the geographical factors are of tremendous favor to the defender at a strategic level. This is even seen in the cases of the US, where the excellent infrastructure was rapidly changing the composition of the capabilities to attack and defend themselves. Central to the efforts of the diplomatic relations and intelligence is based on these issues.

Many times, the attempts at the deterrence have failed mainly when the potential attacker misinterprets another nation's deterrence strategies as a prelude to the offensive measures. In such circumstances, there is a probability that the security dilemma may arise, leading to the perception of the first strike advantage.

Evera believes that the most effective policy to deter is that that is focused on the reduction of the anticipated utility through the use of force while reducing the expected utility of the status quo (Evera 1998). The optimally have been reported to increase the efficiency of the failure to apply the effect. Thus, the policy of deterrence can mainly succeed in any case the attacker finds a deterrence threat incredible.

Evera's main argument is derived from the past studies regarding the offense-defense theory, which was coined and developed by the German Scholar John H. Herz in his book (Evera 1998). The use of the previous and current studies on world politics and conflicts has further enabled him to provide valuable reasoning and insights regarding the causes of war, how it is manifested, and its prevention.

Hobbes Disagreement Theory

Research Problem

The Disagreement theory is another theoretical perspective that explains the causes of war. The theory was proposed by Thomas Hobbes and argues that a war arises because we are fragile, fearful, impressionable, and psychologically prickly creatures that is vulnerable to numerous ideological manipulation whose anger can become irrationally ignited by even little slights of our pride (Abizadeh, 2011).

Thus, the primary source of the war, in the view of Hobbes, is the disagreement based on the fact that humanity will mostly focus on the inflammatory reflections of contempt. Humans are naturally selfish, competitive, and aggressive brutes.

Research Question

A closer look would reveal that Hobbes does not depend on his argument alone but provides numerous empirical evidence to support his points. For example, the fact that put doors are locked at night shows that we worry that other individuals may come and take advantage of us. Similarly, the fact that states are always at war with one another implies that dynamic conflicts outside of their authority are real (Abizadeh, 2011). Thus, Hobbes performed a little of armchair anthropology by pointing out that America is an example where people live in a natural state.

Empirical Section

The Iraq war of 2003 involved two phases; the first phase did not last for long; it only took one month that is from March till April 2003. It was then followed by the second phase, which took quite a duration of time. The first stage of this war involved the invasion of Iraq. It started on the nineteenth of March 2003 (Abizadeh, 2011). The first stage did not include one troop but a combination of forces from the United States, Australia, as well as Poland, where they invaded Iraq.

It went viral for one month, and reaching first May 2003, the president of the United States, the then George W. Bush, called off the war. It then led to the establishment of provisional coalition authority, which contributed to the Iraqi 2005 parliamentary election (Abizadeh, 2011). The first stage of the war took place in Iraqi when almost a combination of thirteen thousand troops arrived in Iraqi. This war aimed to cause massive destruction of lethal weapons that Iraqi had to bring down the terrorism of Saddam Hussein. It was followed by a more prolonged phase, which was fuelled by the opposition of the United States occupation in Iraqi by the insurgency (Abizadeh, 2011). The second stage remained constant until 2007 when it started to decline. The United States began to withdraw his troops from Iraq, which was done entirely in December 2011. The major parties involved in the Iraqi War of 2003 were Iraqi itself, the United States as well as Great Britain. The battle took place in the land of Iraqi.

The declared motivation of the war was in line with the administration of the then president of United States George Bush, steering the military intervention with Iraqi. The same started taking place in late 2001 in what was referred to as Iraqi resolution. It all started by the United States insisting on clearing off the regime that was responsible for the preparation of weapons used for mass destruction. The same system was well known to have the full support of terrorists, which was opposed by the United States. This regime was compromising the human rights and doing opposite to the guidelines of the United Nations (Abizadeh, 2011).

The United States was as well aiming to bring down the government of Saddam Hussein since he was on top and offering full support of the development of weapons for mass destruction. Hussein could threaten his neighbors and go as far as threatening the whole world. The security council of the United Nations gave Iraqi the final opportunity to disarm of which failure they could face the consequences, a warning which the Iraqi could not comply with (Walgrave & Rucht, 2010).

Between 2001 to early 2003, the administration of George Bush went on a drawing board on the best measures they can take to invade Iraqi. After the invasion of Iraqi, the defense intelligence agency opposed the evidence in line with the Iraqi weapons, which made Bush and his administration proceed to the secondary level of the war. For instance, the destruction of the Hussein Government as well as enhancing democracy in Iraqi (Walgrave & Rucht, 2010).

The kind of War in Iraqi reached its peak in the year 2006, where it was described as the civil war (Walgrave & Rucht, 2010). The three significant functions then involved in the Iraqi civil war that is the Saddam loyalists, Islamic extremists as well as Sunni insurgents. It was also accompanied by the addition of the number of troops in Iraqi. The civil war became intense that even overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein. Concerning who won the battle, the flashback of the first stage of the war was won by the High German and the United States when they defeated the military of Iraqi and paramilitary forces (Walgrave & Rucht, 2010). The Hussein government was overthrown, making Iraq lose the war. In line with that, the peaceful agreement then proceeded in 2008. The deal was between the Iraqi and United States that was to define how the US would strategize the removal of his army from Iraqi.

The Iraqi War in 2003 brought a lot of consequences more so in the region where the battle took place. The first consequences were the humanitarian crisis, which was accompanied by the massive displacement of people. Close to four million Iraqi residents were displaced out of the land of Iraqi. Similarly, there was an enormous loss of lives in the period of the war (Walgrave & Rucht, 2010). An average of one hundred people could get killed every day. Moreover, people suffered from hunger since the war resulted in the destruction of property that drove the whole nation into poverty. The ordinary citizens in Iraqi suffered enormous consequences due to the 2003 war.

Nevertheless, there were also political consequences as a result of the Iraqi War (Walgrave & Rucht, 2010). The United States resolution divided the cities of Iraqi, which was also proposed by the then Iraqi president, claiming that it will not cause disunity. There was also a repeat of unified states in Iraqi on the first of October 2007 (Walgrave & Rucht, 2010). The political atmosphere in Iraqi was tampered with since the country was never in the normally peaceful atmosphere. The agreement between the US and the Iraqi also led to the first parliamentary election in the year 2005. The war resulted in regional implications as well as an occupation in the Iraqi.

The other consequences of the Iraqi War also covered the economic crisis in the whole nation. The sa...