In 2003 the US instituted an attack on Iraq which was met by Iraqi retaliation. These events led to the infamous Iraq war which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi citizens. It further led to the displacement of millions of Iraqis with the first American Missile striking Iraq on March 20th and therefore marked the beginning of the war. Given the superior military and strategic resources that were available to the US, it took the US only three weeks to topple the prevailing administration in Iraq. Nonetheless, despite the immense glory, the Bush administration was the subject of increased criticism from several humanitarian organizations. Even before the war, several parties reinforced that the US was wrong in attacking Iraq. These sentiments are justified since the US was unjustified in attacking Iraq. Several factors attest to this reality.
Misleading Evidence on Weapons of Mass Destruction
One of the major factors that led to the attack on Iraq was the US supposition that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (Pan, 2003). Even then, the US was committed to ensuring that weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs were not in production in any given country. This is because such weapons pose a threat to the peace and safety of the American people. Nonetheless, at the end of the war, there were no were weapons of mass destruction that had been discovered in Iraq. Before the war, Iraq had indicated clearly that it was not producing nor employing weapons of mass destruction. However, US intelligence, based on misinformed intelligence prevailed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (Isikoff & Corn, 2006 ).
By the time the war was ending in Iraq, the US had not a shred of evidence to back their assertions on the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Iraq had ceased the production of weapons of mass destruction in the early 1990s. The initial war on Iraq by the Bush Sr. administration had rid the country of every weapon of mass destruction. In the 1980s Iraq comprised one of the major users of weapons of mass destruction (MacAskill, 2004). However subsequent administrations, to claim to power, had quickly determined that production of weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to their authority. It was the duty of the Bush administration to assess and verify the pieces of evidence that had been extended to them concerning the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[“Write my essay for me?” Get help here.]
Financial Cost of the War
The Iraq war, despite its military conclusion in 2003, spanned a duration of 8 years. In the eight years, the US committed to helping rebuild Iraq. When the war ended, the majority of the coalition forces that had helped the US in its war initiative, withdrew their troops from the war. The US was left with the responsibility of solely rebuilding the Iraqi State. This comprised a financial burden to the American taxpayers. In times of war, troop welfare is sustained by the taxpayer. In the eight years of war, the US has had to spend over 5 billion dollars (Isikoff & Corn, 2006 ). These funds were employed indirectly enhancing the successes of the military engagements in the Iraq country. Furthermore, the larger amount of these funds were also spent on weapons which greatly accelerated the financial costs that the US had to bear. [Click Essay Writer to order your essay]
The US, given that no weapons of mass destruction were found, was compelled to service all the infrastructural damage that they had imposed on Iraq. Therefore, a significant portion of the Federal budget was committed to this initiative. These funds were intended to address the reconstruction of physical structures that had been felled in the war. The cost of the war amounted to over 751 billion dollars which is a figure that represents over eight times of the initial costs that had been projected at the start of the war (Filkins, 2009 ). The US further was forced to service veteran health benefits which brought the cost to over a trillion mark. The financial implications of the war on the US economy reinforce the illegality of the war.
The war resulted in the death of over one thousand Americans while the Iraqi population was slashed by about a half as a result of the war. Over 1 and a half million Iraqis comprise casualties of the war (Pan, 2003). War results in the death of several both the intended and the unintended. There is no metric that can be employed to justify the death over a million individuals based on the mistakes made by their leaders. The people of Iraq had not wronged the US, neither had they indicated their support for Saddam Hussein’s actions. It is common knowledge that Saddam Hussein was a dictator and promoted brutality against the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq did little to deserve the casualties that befell them as a result of the war. The US should have sought other means to mitigate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s actions (Filkins, 2009 ). There are several diplomatic avenues that could have been employed by the US to topple Saddam Hussein from his position. For instance, economic sanctions and embargos on Iraqi products would have crippled the economy of Iraq and inspired an internal rebellion.
The surge of extremism against the US comprises one of the implications of the Iraq war. The UN among many other humanitarian organizations, given the human costs of the war, has repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for the intervention they engaged in mitigating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. The UN prevailed that there were several non-violent frameworks, such as the ICC, which would have been employed in curtailing the threat posed by Hussein’s regime to the American people (Filkins, 2009 ). Countries which had initially been the allies became more aggressive to the United States. For instance, Saudi Arabia, a great friend of the US, had tacitly indicated loathe for the decision undertaken by the US. In attacking Iraq, the US overlooked these sentiments which resulted in the bad blood between the two nations to present day. [Need an essay writing service? Find help here.]
Regardless of the realities of the war on the American people and the global community, the proponents of the war prevail that the war did more good than bad (Pollak, 2015). In reinforcing their stands, the proponents prevail that there was a need to enforce the international laws. The international laws prevail that no country should be allowed to produce weapons of mass destruction (Isikoff & Corn, 2006 ). Proponents of this argument prevail that more countries would be willing to openly flout the international regulations if Iraq had not been made to suffer consequences. Nonetheless, this premise is invalid given that there were no weapons of mass destruction that were found in Iraq. The attack was inspired by hearsay and inconclusive evidence. The US should have instead solicited the counsel of the United Nations body and instituted a collective attack on Iraq upon confirmation of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The proponents further indicate that Iraqi citizens are better off today than they were before the war (Pollak, 2015). Saddam Hussein was dictatorial and repeatedly tortured political opponents and dissidents. He thrived on the fear of the Iraqi people and repeatedly threatened their peace. Therefore, in attacking Iraq, the US was aligned towards the liberation of the Iraq people. This assertion is not necessarily true given that the State of the citizens of Iraq remains under threat. Since the disposition of the Hussein regime, the political administration of Iraq has never stabilized (MacAskill, 2004). More people have been forced to flee their homes to escape the malignant grasp of authoritarian and brutal sects in the country. Divergent extreme groups, in the knowledge that political authority in the region had been left bare, rushed to secure authority for themselves (MacAskill, 2004). This inspired infighting which resulted in the destruction of even more property, the death of more Iraqis and the displacement of an even greater number of individuals. Iraqis are now at the mercy of philanthropism as a result of the war. [“Write my essay for me?” Get help here.]
The dominant opinion in the global community reinforces that the Iraq war was unjustified. There are several reasons as to why the US should not have attacked Iraq. To begin with, despite initial allusions to the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, none were found at the end of the war. Furthermore, the war resulted in the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis which comprise a humanitarian crisis. Alternatively, as a result of the war, the American taxpayer has been forced to service the costs that arose from the war. To preempt a repeat of an unfounded attack in the future, there is a need to determine the validity of pieces of evidence before taking action. This will ensure that an attack is based on real and legal premises.
Filkins, D. (2009 ). The forever war. NY: Vintage.
Isikoff, M., & Corn, D. (2006 ). Hubris: The inside story of spin, scandal, and the selling of the Iraq War. OR: Broadway Books.
MacAskill, E. (2004, January 27). Iraq war unjustified says human rights group.
Pan, E. (2003, October 17). Iraq: Justifying the War.
Pollak, J. B. (2015, May 19). Five reasons the Iraq War was not a mistake.