An analytical approach to U.S.

military involvement in Iraq

Written by: Robert Escobosa
An essay describing why military involvement from the United States occurred in Iraq. Why did the U.S. decide to
GOVT 35 FINAL PAPER Peter Davies May 11, 2012

invade Iraq? Oil? National Secuirty? Weapons of mass destruction? What made the U.S. act the way it did? The answers lie within.

Robert Escobosa GOVT 35 FINAL PAPER PETER DAVIES 5/11/12

An analytical approach to U.S. military involvement in Iraq

the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction1 The United States has had for some time struggles with the state of Iraq. These struggles date back to the early 1990s with the first invasion of Iraq. I however will be focusing on the second invasion that occurred in the early part of 2003. There is a reason as to why the United States went into the state of Iraq again. Using the state level of analysis, I determined that the United States was simply acting naturally as any other state would when it invaded Iraq for the second time. The second invasion of Iraq can be best explained and understood by applying the state level of analysis. The state level of analysis does not care about the system level, or even the individual level of analysis. The United States did not go to war because then President George W. Bush felt the need to (an individual approach). The United States did not go to war because of an inferiority complex within the international system (a systemic approach). The decision to go to war was made because of the temperament the U.S. as a state. Our textbook shows that the national interest of a state is at the heart of its decision making process. Every state would want

(CNN Politics 2002) An analytical approach to U.S. military involvement in Iraq

to protect the physical security of the countryand its people2 in addition to keeping the economic security and prosperity3 of that country intact. The United States was a state that had significant variables that influenced its decision to move forward with the invasion of Iraq. One must consider the type of government the United States was. The United States was a democratic state. The United States having an interest in its economic performance played a part in the Iraqi invasion. The U.S. would want to make sure its economy was viable. The United States had its own cultural identity. The United States was a superpower that is considered itself being the land of the free. Defending this land of the free was a motivating factor for action in Iraq. Public opinion also played a role in making the threat of military action a reality. The most important thing to notice here in reference to the above things (the type of government, economic concern, cultural identity and public opinion) are not national interests that are specific to any given state. They are universal to every state and have no individual or systemic significance. And this is why one must presume that the state level of analysis is the best way to look at the invasion of Iraq. Before I go any further, I must describe Iraq. Using information I learned from the CIA World Factbook, I can confidently say these things. Iraqs natural resources consist of petroleum, (and) natural gas.4 Iraq is so rich in natural resources that these resources make up a substantial portion of its economy. The U.S Energy Information Administration found that Iraq was the worlds 12th largest oil producer in 2009, and has the worlds fourth largest proven petroleum reserves after Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Iran.5 What is even more interesting is that
2 3

(Bova 2012) (Bova 2012) 4 (United States Central Intelligence Agency 2009) 5 (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2010) An analytical approach to U.S. military involvement in Iraq

Just a fraction of Iraqs known fields are in development, and Iraq may be one of the few places left where vast reserves, proven and unknown, have barely been exploited.6 These pieces of information would make the state of Iraq quite attractive to super powers such as the United States. Believe it or not, the United States is the number one consumer of oil among the other countries around the world.7 Be that as it may, the United States would benefit from having a position in Iraq. The United States would maintain that its prosperity is continued if it had access to a country with large oil reserves and little to no government. The United States wanting to ensure that it remains prosperous by way of the rich Iraqi oil reserves is nothing special if you apply the state level of analysis. Any state could and is likely to do what it can to remain prosperous if it had the means (which the U.S. does) coupled with the United States opportunity to set foot in Iraq. Oil had to have been a motivating factor for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The old saying of a kid in a candy store clearly rings a bell here. Recall earlier that I mentioned that a state being a state would want to maintain a sense of security. In the international system, maintaining a sense of security is quite important. On September 11, 2001 there were a series of attacks on the World Trade Center in which widely known terror organization, Al-Qaeda, was responsible for. President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda.8 Saddam Hussein was believed, at the time that is, to have had ties with the organization. These claims were eventually proven false per a government report; Hussein's regime was not cooperating with al-Qaeda before the

6 7

(U.S. Energy Information Administration 2010) (United States Central Intelligence Agency 2009) 8 (CNN World 2004) An analytical approach to U.S. military involvement in Iraq

U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released9 The total number of people killed in the attacks as of 2002 was 2,819.10 The national security of the United States was all of a sudden threatened as a result of the World Trade Center attacks. An outside force had directly harmed the United States for the first time in what seems to have been ages. A state would naturally defend itself against such an attack. The United States would later use the events that took place on September 11, 2001 in combination with large amounts of public support as one reason to enter Iraq. Twenty-Six days after the attack on U.S. soil, the state of the Iraq is bombed.11 The above attacks lead me to my next point, and that is what made the United States pull the trigger on taking military action in Iraq. Sure, the attacks set the stage for the use of military forcebut that couldnt have been the only reason why the United States wanted to gain access to the oil filled country. A quote shows that not much longer after September 11, 2001, an Iraqi defector makes claims that there are hidden weapon of mass destruction sites in Iraq; An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad12 The Iraqi defectors claims are later proven false as referenced in a news article; A defector whose claims that Iraq had biological weapons were used in justifying the 2003 U.S. invasion has admitted that he lied13 This report, regardless of its falsity, was still held as truth at the time. The report added more fuel to the fire. This the United States now has yet one more reason to invade Iraq.
9

(Smith 2007) (New York Magazine 2012) 11 (New York Magazine 2012) 12 (Miller 2001) 13 (Fox News 2011) An analytical approach to U.S. military involvement in Iraq
10

The threat of having weapons of mass destruction looming about Iraq, weapons that could potentially harm the already hurt United States, was a direct threat to the security of the state. The United States was not going to sit around and wait for weapons of mass destruction to be used against them. The United States found this to be unacceptable. The President of the United States, who at the time was George W. Bush, said that "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."14 The United States invading Iraq to defend against the threat of weapons of mass destruction, in itself, would be an expected response given the nature of the state level of analysis. The United States was not going to sit around and wait for weapons of mass destruction to be used against them. The chances of any state doing so would be slim to none. The United States would be providing for its national security in both the short term and long term by taking action in Iraq. The U.S continues to search for weapons of mass destruction despite turning up none. Throughout the course of the search efforts, no weapons of mass destruction are actually found. The United States is completely convinced that weapons actually exist. The earlier report of there being hidden sites that contained weapons of mass destruction did turn out to be false, but that wasnt found out until 2011. This would be 10 years after the conflict in Iraq had already begun. That would be 10 years too late.

14

(Sanger 2002)

An analytical approach to U.S. military involvement in Iraq

The United States senate and eventually approve a war resolution in Iraq if the need arises. the United States "will not be intimated by thugs and killers," President Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his sons a 48-hour ultimatum Monday: Leave the country or face military action.15 The United States now poses an ultimatum to the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. The United States gives him one last chance. War ticked ever closer Tuesday as Saddam Hussein appeared on television in uniform and rejected with contempt President Bush's ultimatum to relinquish power and flee Iraq by tonight.16 The United States is trying to ensure its security by way of offering a peaceful resolution. However, we now we have Saddam formally rejecting the United States request to give up via his television response on March 19, 2003. The United States uses diplomatic tactics with its soft power. This is something an inherently democratic state such as the U.S. would do. Most democratic states would react the way that the United States did. The U.S. has yet another reason to go to war in Iraq. At this point the United States has a multitude of reasons for which to engage in war. Firstly, we have the desire to secure vast oil resources that the number one worldwide consumer of oil so desperately needs to ensure its long-term prosperity. Now add the direct attack that occurred against the United States on September 11, 2001 to the equation. Insert the threat to national security that the 2001 World Trade Center Attack created. Throw in the now apparent weapons of mass destruction that the state of Iraq allegedly possesses. The national security of the United States is further at risk. Place the man that the United States sees tied to all of the above issues; Saddam Hussein into the problem. Now attach that mans public rejection to give

15 16

(CNN 2003) (John Daniszewski 2003) An analytical approach to U.S. military involvement in Iraq

up. Diplomacy unfortunately ends up failing. Peace is no longer an option. The public at this point is ready for war. Intelligence leaves "no doubt" that Iraq possesses "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," Bush said. We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater.17 This is a logical response from the United States. Especially that the above issue placed more threats upon its sense of security. The war in Iraq was not just for oil, not just for supposed weapons of mass destruction, not just to please public desire for retaliation. The war was not even allowed to happen to simply show off the United States superpower status. Military action didnt merely occur in Iraq to fight terrorism; domestic or international. The real reason why the United States went to war with Iraq for the second time was because each of the events referenced in this essay piled up. The attacks, the rejections of U.S. authority, the view of plentiful resources, the threat of weapons of mass destruction, making the U.S. public happy fighting terrorism were not reasons alone to move into Iraq again. It is the blending of all of these reasons together that gives the United States a compelling reason to move in to Iraq. Any state when faced with a compelling reason to use force would use force. The United States wasnt being different than any state faced with the task of weighing the options on whether or not to go to war. The U.S. evaluated its options, and it felt the options were stacked against it. A recipe for disaster was born. The United States acted without surprise. The U.S. had to go to war. So it did. The United States formally invades Iraq on March 19, 2003; citing that the looming threat of weapons of mass destruction cannot allow for inaction of the U.S for the risks would be too great.

17

(CNN 2003) An analytical approach to U.S. military involvement in Iraq

Works Cited
Bova, Russell. How the world works A Brief Survey of International Relations, Second Edition. Longman, 2012. CNN . Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq. Washington, 18 March, 2003. CNN Politics. Senate approves Iraq war resolution. Octoer 11, 2002. CNN World. Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link. June 15, 2004. Fox News. Iraqi Defector Admits Lying About WMD to Topple Saddam Hussein. KARLSRUHE, February 16, 2011. John Daniszewski, Edwin Chen. "Los Angeles Times." Hussein Rejects Ultimatum; U.S. Hones Its Plans for War, March 19, 2003: 1. Miller, Judith. "The New York Times." An Iraqi Defector Tells of Work on at Least 20 Hidden Weapons Sites, December 20, 2001: 1. New York Magazine. 9/11 by the Numbers. New York, 2012. Sanger, David E. "The New York Times." THE STATE OF THE UNION: THE OVERVIEW; BUSH, FOCUSING ON TERRORISM, SAYS SECURE U.S. IS TOP PRIORITY, January 30, 2002: 1. Smith, R. Jeffrey. "Washington Post." Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted, April 6, 2007: 1. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Country Analysis Brief. Government Publication, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2010.

An analytical approach to U.S. military involvement in Iraq

United States Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook. Government Publication, Washington, DC: United States Central Intelligence Agency, 2009.

An analytical approach to U.S. military involvement in Iraq

10

An analytical approach to U.S. military involvement in Iraq