The war against Iraq by the US has come under a lot of criticism because of the effects it has subjected to the Iraqis and US citizens. The war started on March 2003 during the reign of President George Bush. It is said that the war was planned in early 2002. The war erupted in the name of combating terrorism, but it later turned out that terrorism was just a hidden reason to waste tax payers’ money.
Prior to the war, there were allegations that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destructions. Consequently, Saddam Hussein was thought to be collaborating with Al Qaeda to stage terror attacks against US. The UN recommended that Iraq be investigated to find out whether these accusations were true, and indeed there was no evidence to support these accusations (Galbraith 34).
It seems there was bad relationship between Saddam Hussein and the then US president George W. Bush because no one expected him to rage war against Iraq after the UN had confirmed that there were no such weapons in Iraq.
It is certain that president Bush was completing the war that his father had started back in 1991. Besides, the action of the US and Britain to go against the will of UN revealed that the two countries are dominant over the body and one is left to wonder what would have happened if the violation was done by a third world country.
To the ordinary citizens of US, the war was not necessary because it was already costing them millions of money. In addition, there was nothing to be gained from the war apart from inflation because the government was directing most of its funds towards the war. In fact, the invasion made the situation in Iraq to worsen and most people felt that Iraq should have been left to solve its own domestic problems.
To the Americans, the war was unexpected, considering that the national debt has continued to rise to several trillions over the years and yet the money is not being put into good use.
Schell argues that the US war in Iraq caused many innocent people to die. It is not only the Iraqis who died, but also the US military officers (1). This outcome did not mean anything to President Bush because his main objective was to get rid of Saddam Hussein; in fact, the September eleventh attacks gave him a good reason to attack Iraq.
It is true that the people of Iraq were suffering because of the evils committed by their political leader, but even so no one should have died. Bush’s administration thought that by removing Saddam from power they would solve the problems of Iraq.
The outcome was completely opposite because the ethnic communities started to fight each other in an unprecedented scale – women were raped along with their children. The fighting resulted in a humanitarian crisis because the health care providers were overwhelmed by the increased number of patients.
Initially, both the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims were attacking US military, but later on they started to fight amongst themselves. President Bush then requested the military to hang on for some time until the situation became calm. This was just an excuse of exercising control over Iraq. The outcomes of the war suggest that US had not prepared to handle the consequences that would follow after the attack. There was no need of starting a mission that could not be finished.
In this regard, the US should have considered using other approaches in solving the problems in Iraq. This is because the use of force led to destruction of infrastructure and private properties. It cost US a lot of money to rebuild the damaged facilities which was expressed by many as wastage of money that would have been put into good use.
This is because there are so many problems in the US and the citizens expected the government to give its own citizens the first priority instead of focusing on other people’s problems. For instance, by the time the invasion was taking place the rate of unemployment in the US was still high and the nine billion should have been used to help such people to start their own businesses, which in future would increase government revenue through tax collection.
From a legal perspective, the US had no right to attack Iraq and thus if the legal procedures were followed the US could be sued at the international court and a hefty fine would then be imposed. The invasion further interfered with economic activities such as the sale of oil products, which forms the back borne of Iraq’s economy.
This in itself created an impression that the US oppresses developing nations and is selfish because it is only concerned about safeguarding its own interests. This attitude has destroyed the relationship between Islamic nations in the Middle East and the Americans. This is because the invasion was expressed as an attack against Muslims and the Americans too think that all Muslims are terrorists (Galbraith 20).
The attack on Iraq was therefore biased because terrorists are in many parts of the world and if indeed Bush was committed towards ending terrorism, he would have commissioned the apprehension of terrorists in other parts of the world.
Walter reckons that the idea of withdrawing military presence from Iraq should have been implemented earlier instead of waiting until when the situation has worsened (1). The American people do not deserve to face the economic hardships they experienced in the name of fighting terrorism because when they pay taxes to the government they expect that money to be incorporated into the states development projects.
In essence, were it not for the congress, the war on Iraq would not have ended. Prior to the invasion, the US was warned against carrying out the attack, but Bush and his allies chose to ignore that counsel. Most people blame the congress for not preventing the attack because Bush could not have proceeded without authority from the congress.
Bush’s administration was certain that it could restructure Iraq once the invasion was over and they did not think that the cost could accumulate to several billions. Furthermore, they expected full backing from the citizens of Iraq, but this was not the case because the civilians became hostile to US’s presence.
One thing that Bush’s administration did not know is that even if the US is powerful it cannot assume the role of a global policeman, and doing so will cause it to fail in other essential areas. For instance, the rate of crime in US is still high and the government should have given such an issue the first priority because when terrorists prepare to launch attacks they collaborate with local criminals.
The war on terrorism would have been won if only the government would have considered preparing US’s security agents to handle terror attacks. This would have cost less money compared to the huge amounts that was spent in Iraq. Likewise, as the US concentrated on Iraq, terrorist groups in other parts of the world were still executing their plans.
The US invasion on Iraq was meant to exhibit the abilities of the government in fighting terrorism, but contrary to the government’s expectations, the invasion unveiled the incompetence of the US intelligence because all its allegations turned out to be lies. In addition, the invasion failed to bring democracy in Iraq because the continued invasion caused the Iraqis to be split along their ethnic lines.
Thus, the invasion on Iraq has tainted the US’s integrity because in as much as it claimed its main objective was to bring democracy in Iraq by the year 2008, its focus had shifted to helping the Iraqis fight amongst themselves. This created an impression that US leads double standards because if the presence of US military was meant to restore peace it should have maintained a neutral stand without taking sides.
In light of this, the predecessors of President Bush, including Barrack Obama have a long way in restoring back the respect that was once accorded to the US. Bush was misguided into thinking that power is determined by military abilities. This is wrong because for the world to respect someone they consider how he/she make decisions and how he/she interacts with the rest of the world.
Actually, the first challenge that president Obama encountered entailed recalling the military from Iraq. The failure in Iraq’s attack is owed to the politicking that was allowed to take center-stage because if Bush’s administration would have analyzed the positive and the negative side, the government would have identified early indicators of failure and thus, take an affirmative action.
Perhaps, on May 2, 2011, Obama made a leap in the war against terror by announcing the killing of al-Quada leader, Osama bin Laden. However, such developments still raise questions on the possibility of succeeding in war against terror; it is apparent that people around the world, particularly the US are more threatened than before.
In conclusion, the government should consider removing the intelligence officers who misguided the government so that such a mistake does not recur again in future. It is recommended that the government should analyze criticisms because even though it is not what we want to hear it helps us to identify the faults in our decisions.
Therefore, the war on Iraq is not worth the money the US spends yearly. Future presidents should not be allowed to use their influence to solve their personal flaws with other people at the expense of their subjects. The US government should stay away from other countries affairs and let them solve their own problems because if it focuses on other countries problems when will it solve its own problems.
Works Cited
Galbraith, Peter. Unintended Consequences: How War in Iraq Strengthened America’s Enemies. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008. Print.
Schell, Jonathan. Why we Must Leave Iraq. 23 Sept. 2004. Web.
Walter, Pincus. Violence in Iraq called increasingly complex. Washington Post.17 Nov. 2006. Web.