The invasion of iraq 2003 essay

The reason given by President Bush administration was that the invasion was a response of the 9/11 terror attack. The justification for the Iraq invasion would basically be inspired by a neorealism perspective on foreign policy by the coalition of the willing against Iraq. The essay analyzes disturbing questions as to why Iraq became a target in response to an attack that had been carried out by the Al-Qaida terrorist group with no definitive links to Iraq. The argument on the decision to Invade Iraq The invasion of Iraq remains controversial due to the reason behind attack considering that many people lost their lives both from the American coalition as well as the Iraqis. Besides, the war jeopardized the United States economy which was only recovering from the deficit spent in the September 11 attack.

Its involvement in the production of the weapon of mass destruction was not something that the United States would sit back and watch. Iraq's ties with the Al-Qaida posed the possibility of providing the terrorist group with the weapons so that they could use the weapons against the United States (Franz-Stefan Gady, The Diplomat. Besides, what had transpired in the 9/11 attack required the world to respond to any sort of threat. President Bush came up with the one percent doctrine in which he explained that the country would act on the slightest threat. The decision to invade Iraq was put to scrutiny and subjected to both formal and informal investigation after it was established there was no discovery of a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq and there was no evidence that Iraq was associated with Al-Qaida (Roberts, Lafta, Garfield, Khudhairi, & Burnham, 2004).

A realist school of thought is based on the belief that states are primary actors in international relations superseding the input of individual actors and international organizations (Payne, 2007). A realist looks into powerful states as having a great input in international relations notwithstanding the input of other actors in the system. The view of the world as being international anarchy with a particular global government in place to assert some central authority makes realist concerned about the impact of such an arrangement (Payne, 2007). The global anarchical environment contributes to the realists thought of providing a mechanism that puts in place both defensive and offensive capabilities to protect their national interests. Nonetheless, the realist line of thought provides a challenging situation in the global space for states to develop mechanisms that would protect them from the uncertain international anarchy without the prejudice of preparing for an offensive undertaking (Telhami, 2003).

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 does not have any other justification for the fear of terrorism extensively but speaks to an offensive neorealist approach to dominate the Middle East against the rise of Saddam Hussein. The United States offensive neorealist approach to attack Iraq on the pretext of posing a threat to the country defines the desire of the country to dominate the distribution of global states power and assert influence (Telhami, 2003). After the war, there were no weapons of mass destruction discovered thus raising a question on the exact reason that led to the invasion. Three major questions transpired. One, why the policymakers or the decision makers in the United States were convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction being produced in Iraq (Van Rythoven, 2016).

The actions present the American Government had decided to invade Iraq way before it came public and declared war on Iraq. It seems that the intelligence was being pushed towards a particular direction that suggested war in Iraq. Sufficient evidence exists that shows that the American foreign policy to declare war in Iraq was the most disastrous in the recent past (Schuster, & Maier, 2006). The aim of the invasion failed to materialize regardless of the act it was based on false information or the fact that the desired outcome failed. In other words, it does not matter that the foreign policy was on an offensive neorealist approach in invading Iraq with nothing to do with producing weapons of mass destruction (The impact of the 2003 Iraq invasion, 2016).

Moreover, it was the intention of the war to diminish Syria and secure Israel. Nonetheless, the war left Israel more threatened and Syria more isolated. Finally, the invasion was supposed to improve the relationship between the Muslim and the United States. Conversely, it led to Turkey which was perceived to be the capital for moderate Muslim, becoming one of the countries that oppose America in a great way. A war that was supposed to show how US is a superpower ended up showing its shortcomings in its intelligence department, incompetence in policy making as well as a limitation of US military (Payne, 2007). On the other hand, Cheney and Rumsfeld had started working in the government during the Nixon administration and they facilitated the transition to Ford administration.

Wolfowitz, Rice, and Feith were intellectuals who had engaged political matters throughout their academic life. Others included Andrew Card, Zalmay Khalilzad, Paula Dobriansky, Scooter Libby and Paul O‟ Neill (Franz-Stefan Gady, The Diplomat. Each of these people had remarkable resumes. However, all these great people presided a sitting that designed the most criticized US foreign policy after the war on Vietnam. W. B. , & Wver, O.  Regions and powers: the structure of international security (Vol. Cambridge University Press. Goldthau, A. Divided over Iraq, United over Iran. A Rational Choice Explanation to European Irrationalities. Hansen, B.  Unipolarity and world politics: a theory and its implications. Neorealists as critical theorists: The purpose of foreign policy debate.  Perspectives on Politics, 5(3), 503-514. Roberts, L. , Lafta, R.