words :: books :: ideas

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Concerning War

[This is an essay that I wrote for my writing class last January/February concerning the Iraq War. Rather long, relies heavily on quotes, and not exactly current anymore.]
This essay’s objective is to show that George Bush, president of the United States, made a noble and ethical decision when he initiated the Iraq War. The proof of this is found by looking into President Bush’s motives. Freeing Iraq from the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein and protecting the U.S. from terrorist threat are both reasons behind this war. Although some argue that nothing good has come of this conflict, Iraq has made much progress in becoming a democracy. In conclusion, the motivations of the president are moral reasons for the Iraq War.
The Beginning of a War
Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory. My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail (“Operation”, 2003, n.p.).

These words came from the mouth of the president of the United States of America, George Bush, on March 19, 2003, the day the U.S. went to war with Iraq.
A Need for Freedom
Although the history of Saddam Hussein’s presidency of this Middle Eastern country dates back to 1979, much of the basis to the current Iraq War began in 1991. In this year the United States waged war against Iraq in order to convince the nation to discontinue its occupation of the neighboring country of Kuwait. “Operation Dessert Storm” proved successful, and Iraq left Kuwait. The Iraqi government promised the United Nations (U.N.) that it would cease the process of making weapons of mass destruction and allow the U.N. to conduct inspections. However, in both 1998 and 2000, Iraq refused to let the U.N. inspectors do their job. In 2002, the Iraq government was suspected of building illegal weapons and allying itself with the terrorist organization, al Qaeda. At long last, the inspectors were able to begin their search, which continued into 2003. The United States at this time believed Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq to be a threat.
Because of this belief, the U.S. began the invasion of Iraq early in 2003. In April, Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq, came under the control of U.S. troops. After months of searching, December 14, 2003 brought the capture of Iraq’s dictator-like leader, Saddam Hussein. Now in prison, Hussein is awaiting a trial by his own people. Although much progress has been made in securing a safe Iraq, segments of Saddam Hussein’s regime still fight against the soldiers of America and against Iraqi citizens. At the end of January 2005, elections took place to select new leaders; however, results from this voting have not yet been discovered.
Some view America’s president’s decision to invade Iraq as the wrong choice. Thinking peace better, they often say nothing good has come from the Iraq War.
The Motivations
Knowing this history of the Iraq War, one must consider the United States President’s motives for invading Iraq. What were his reasons? President Bush wanted to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s administration and to protect the United States from the terrorist threat this regime produced. When President Bush initiated the Iraq War, he made a noble, ethical decision.
A President’s Reasoning
A foremost motivation for the president’s choice to invade Iraq was to free the country from its tyrannical leader, Saddam Hussein. This Middle Eastern nation needed liberating from Hussein’s despotic regime. The Iraqi tyrant committed murder of innocent people, both his own countrymen and others, including Americans. As Deroy Murdock said on National Public Radio, “According to Human Rights Watch, more than 250,000 people were detained or murdered by the government of Saddam Hussein” (“Commentary”, 2003, n.p.). President Bush himself said of Hussein, “This is a guy who was a torturer, a killer, a maimer; there’s [sic] mass graves…he was a horrible individual” (“Press”, 2004, n.p.).
Not only did he unjustly kill blameless people, Hussein harbored and provided funding for terrorists. David Kay, a weapons inspector, implied that “Iraq was a magnet for international terrorists who were free to operate there, and plan and conduct their deadly mischief” (Limbaugh, 2004, n.p.).
Hussein’s administration also was making nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; these weapons of mass destruction are a violation of the United Nations resolutions. “What we learned,” said David Kay, “during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war” (Limbaugh, 2004, n.p.). “Saddam was flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions in a number of respects and feverishly trying to do so in others” (Limbaugh, 2004, n.p.). The violations the above quote refers to is the making of nuclear weapons.
While longing for freedom from their oppressor, the Iraqis were unable to achieve this goal on their own. “They want strong protections for individual rights; they want their independence; and they want their freedom” (“Press”, 2004, n.p.). The reason the United States went to war in Iraq is to give them this independence. “Bush hailed the liberation of Iraq, and its conversion to a free and democratic society, as our chief objective in going to war there” (Rusher, 2005, n.p.).
The president of the United States said a “central commitment of that mission is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people” (“Press”, 2004, n.p.). Liberating Iraq from the despotic leadership of Saddam Hussein truly is a just and noble basis for invading the country.
As well as wanting to release the Iraqis, President Bush began the war in Iraq to protect the United States from the threat of Saddam Hussein’s terrorism. Hussein was a menace because he hated the U.S. and had the power to hurt this country. Since his nation has a large amount of oil, Hussein would have the means to pay terrorists to cause damage to the United States. President Bush stated,
Every threat we must take seriously. Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. He was a threat because he coddled terrorists. He was a threat because he funded suiciders. He was a threat to the region. He was a threat to the United States (“Press”, 2004, n.p.).
Head of the Iraqi Survey Group, Charlie Duelfer, “confirmed that Saddam had…the ability to produce biological and chemical weapons. In other words, he was a danger. He had long-range missiles that were undeclared to the United Nations; he was a danger” (“Press”, 2004, n.p.).
At the very least, we have the right to defend our nation from the threats of terrorist attacks from the likes of Saddam, even if that means the removal of his entire regime. If, in doing so, we provide the opportunity for Iraqi citizens to explore freedom and build a system of representative government that allows them to exercise their own ability and benefit from their own efforts, then perhaps it is not only our right, but also our duty (Lamb, 2003, n.p.).
Additionally, by responding to one threat with overwhelming force and utterly defeating it, the U.S. will have fewer threats with which to contend. Invading Iraq presents an opportunity for the United States to prove her word.
The success of free government in Iraq is vital for many reasons. A free Iraq is vital because 25 million Iraqis have as much right to live in freedom as we do. A free Iraq will stand as an example to reformers across the Middle East. A free Iraq will show that America is on the side of Muslims who wish to live in peace, as we have already shown in Kuwait and Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan. A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America’s word, once given, can be relied upon, even in the toughest times. Above all, the defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere; and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people (“Press”, 2004, n.p.).
Who would want to fight against a nation that they know will follow its word and is willing and ready to defend herself? Bringing down the threat of Iraq will dishearten and discourage other threats, aiding them in making the decision to settle disputes peacefully. An example of this logic is Libya; the U.S. viewed this nation as a terrorist threat. It was,
a nation that sponsored terror, a nation that was dangerous because of weapons. And Colonel Gadhafi made the decision, and rightly so, to disclose and disarm, for the good of the world…they found…50 tons of mustard gas…in a turkey farm, only because he was willing to disclose where the mustard gas was. But that made the world safer (“Press”, 2004, n.p.).

Both the liberating of the Iraqis from the despotic government and protecting the United States from a terrorist threat, stand to show that President Bush justly chose to initiate the Iraq War.
“Nothing Good”
That nothing good has come from the Iraq War is a major argument of those opposing President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. Once one has studied the evidence, however, this reasoning seems flawed. A large amount of progress has been made. First, the United States removed the ruler, Saddam Hussein, from power; as U.S. administrator Paul Bremer so elegantly put it, “we got him” (“Saddam Hussein”, 2003, n.p.).
The fact that elections took place on January 30, 2005 to choose new governmental leaders is an additional proof that benefit has come to the Iraqi people since the start of the warfare. Before the day of voting, it was said, “If the election is relatively successful, Iraq (and the Bush administration) will have turned an important corner. The momentum of victory will encourage the democratic forces in the country, and is bound to discourage the terrorists” (Rusher, 2005, n.p.). The Iraqi voters around the country went to polls on the selected Sunday to cast their ballots. “The election for a National Assembly was Iraq's first free vote in more than 50 years, and voters showed up in defiance of insurgents threats to kill anyone who cast a ballot” (Knickmeyer, 2005, n.p.). Speaking on the elections held in Iraq, President Bush said,
Today the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East. In great numbers and under great risk, Iraqis have shown their commitment to democracy. By participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists. They have refused to be intimidated by thugs and assassins. And they have demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government (“Bush’s Remarks”, 2005, n.p.).
The Middle Eastern country is rapidly becoming a democracy, which will in turn promote peace. “The greater the number of democracies, the greater is the zone of peace in the world” (Rummel, 2004, n.p.). Contrary to what the challengers of the president’s decision in the Iraq War may think, this new freedom for the Iraqi people is a vast change for the better.
A President’s Resolve
President Bush’s motives for initiating the Iraq War are both noble and ethical; freeing Iraq from tyrannical rule and safeguarding the United States from a terrorist threat truly are just reasons for this conflict.
We will succeed in Iraq. We’re carrying out a decision that has already been made and will not change: Iraq will be a free, independent country, and America and the Middle East will be safer because of it. Our coalition has the means and the will to prevail. We serve the cause of liberty, and that is, always and everywhere, a cause worth serving (“Press”, 2004, n.p.).

1 comment:

choupizzz said...

"President Bush’s motives for initiating the Iraq War are both noble and ethical;"
yeah that's very likely...going for oil and killing a lot of people because of your own greed...that's a noble act...
and yeah lying to your own people telling them that Iraq owned weapons of mass destruction when it was proved it dosent, that's ethical...
and going againt the uno decision, yep another great way to lead countries toward democracy...
of course Hussein is a bad guy and deserves a trial and everything, but war should only be used as last resort...and should at least be a minimum prepared...you know just to protect people...