Five years down the line since the U.S staged the war against Iraq, many people have different opinions about the war. However, looking at the reasons for the war, the preparations and the results, it can be said that the war against Iraq was a big mistake. This is because it was based on untruthful information given by George Bush and his administration by claiming that Iraq was producing weapons of mass destructions, and Saddam Hussein had extended ties with terrorist groups (Gwynne, 2008).
The war was based on fabrication given by George Bush and intelligence agency troops (Gwynne, 2008). For instance, they claimed that Iraq had developed extensive weapons of mass destruction, including an advanced nuclear weapons programme and large stockpiles of anthrax, sarin and VX gas. Critics continue to state that the U.S. claimed Saddam Hussein had close ties with the terrorists group Al Qaeda including Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas of Achille Lauro fame (Gwynne, 2008).
According to the National Journal, President Bush and his administration received two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to the president as justifications of their reasons for attacking and toppling Saddam Hussein (Milan & Noam, 2002).
According to Murray Waas of the National Journal, the first report delivered to Bush in 2002 discussed that Saddam’s procurement of high-strength aluminium tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon (Gwynne, 2008). The Energy and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and research claimed that the tubes were intended for conventional weapons. However, when the US troops entered Iraq’s after the fall of Saddam’s regime, they found out that Iraq’s nuclear programme had been dormant for more than a decade, and that the aluminium tubes had been used for artillery shells (Gwynne, 2008).
In the months leading to war, Bush, Cheney and cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the U.S., or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or other terrorists groups. Due to this, the Bush administration used the potential threat as a major rationale in making the case to go to war (Milan & Noam, 2002).
Opponents claim that the war was unworthy to the people of the U.S. This is because it has lead to the death of thousands of the U.S soldiers, Iraq soldiers and the civilians, damaged the peace and stability throughout the region and the whole world (Milan & Noam, 2002). Iraq is a sovereign country and U.S as a foreign country had no rights to intervene the internal affairs of Iraq including terrorism and other non-international affairs (Milan & Noam, 2002).
Some opponents have argued since there were no weapons of mass destruction found that after the attack on Iraq, it was Bush’s administration rationale to gain control over Iraq natural resources, primarily, petroleum. Critics say that the war did not help to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction proliferation, and the real reason for the U.S attack was to take control over the Iraq oil fields of which at the time, U.S links with South Arabia were seen to be at risk of collapsing (Gwynne, 2008).
The US Army commanders have complained that the Department of Defense did not deploy enough U.S troops to the war in the initial stages (Gwynne, 2008). The U.S troops that were asked by Iraqi to maintain order in Baghdad have said that they did not have enough men to keep order. They also did not have enough safety preparations, and this is according to veterans and lawmakers from both parties and the General Accounting Office who have claimed that the military was not equipped even at present to give adequate protection to the people against biological and chemical warfare (Gwynne, 2008).
They also asserted that the Field training for Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons (NBC) was not being conducted well and it was not robust as it was only being conducted for only two to four hours a year and involved simulation of worst case scenarios (Gwynne, 2008).
According to First Read E-mail posted by Domenico Montaro, U.S presidential hopeful Barrack Obama has claimed that President Bush’s announcements of U.S troop’s redeployment in Iraq will not bring about reconciliation between the country’s leaders. The Illinois senator told reporters that Bush’s plan was like giving a new name for the same mistake. The U.S did not understand the historic conflict that exists between the Shiite and Sumi to be able to stop the sectarian war as the religious differences among Iraqis make the conflict very difficult to understand (Milan & Noam, 2002).
It can be argued that the war was a mistake, and what has already been done cannot be undone, the only decisions the Americans have to do is to come up with a solution, and move on. This can be done by deciding on who, and on which Iraq policy to support during the forthcoming election. I support the Deutch in the New York Times of 7th September 2005 which advocated for a fixed timetable of withdrawal of the troops and turning over the (Iraq) country to the Iraqis. The U.S department of justice needs a new law defining exactly what constitutes a terrorist act. The may be difficult since it could depend on politicians who use violent means to achieve political ambitions.
References
Milan Rai and Noam Chomsky (2002). War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War with Iraq.
Gwynne Dyer (2008). After Iraq: Anarchy and Renewal in the Middle East. St Martins Pr.