The Frames of the Iraqi War There are many views, theories, perspectives, and ideas pertaining to the War in Iraq. Throughout the last three years, as more and more information becomes available, the reasons for going to war with Iraq has changed. The War in Iraq would be considered a social movement. Therefore, it has many collective action frames, which legitimize a set of beliefs about a certain action or movement. The first pro-war frame is the first reasoning that the government gave for going to war with Iraq in the beginning – weapons of mass destruction.
The United States had reason to believe that Sadaam Hussein, Iraq’s leader, had weapons of mass destruction and was harboring terrorists or contributing to terrorist actions. This could be identified as the motivational frame. It seemed as though America had a legitimate, rational explanation for invading Iraq. The United States government had both factors that contributed to the effectiveness of the frame: credibility and relative salience. The motivational frame, weapons of mass destruction, was given credibility when it was said by the Central Intelligence Agency that they had reason to believe that Iraq was producing such weapons. It was also given credibility when the President identified Iraq as part of the “Axis of Evil” and a threat to the United States.
The Term Paper on Iraq Wars
Introduction In 1979, President Bakr resigned under pressure from Hussein, who then became president. Immediately after his succession, Hussein called a Baath Party meeting and had all of his opposition systematically murdered. As president, Hussein continued to reinforce his power base by enlarging security forces and employing family members in the government. One 1984 analysis indicated that 50 ...
The American people look at the President to know the information needed to make big decisions to go to war. It seemed logical, and congruent to that information, that the U. S. invades Iraq for its own protection.
The three dimensions of relative salience are also there. The centrality, or the ideas of going to war and getting rid of Sadaam and the weapons of mass destruction seems beneficial to the United States at the time. Also, it under the circumstances, and the frame of mind of the people at the time, it definitely gives the American people a little more peaceful state of mind, which affects everyday life. After it was found that Iraq was not hiding or producing weapons of mass destruction then government changed its view on the war in Iraq. The government elites, such as the Secretary of State and the President himself, are pushing the fact that Sadaam Hussein was an awful leader who was horrible to his people. He had mass graves, and poured fear into his people.
The President made it clear in his “Axis of Evil” speech that the United States would not tolerate inhumanity by anyone. This is what could be called the diagnostic frame, or injustice frame. The government used the injustices of the Iraqi people to stay in Iraq. They push the fact that the Iraqi people will be better off once we get democracy spread into that nation. Both of these frames were pushed by frame articulation. The people leading the social movement, the United States government, connected the events of the belief of weapons and the injustice of the Iraqi people by Hussein as a logical reason to invade and go to war with Iraq.
They were also pushed by frame amplification. The government amplified the bad things to justify going to war. There is another frame that has to do with the War in Iraq, and that is the anti-war view. It is some people’s belief that the President and this country went to war for oil. There are some people who believe that we initially went to war for the right reasons, but now that Sadaam has been caught, and we know that there are not any weapons of mass destruction, that the United States should pull out of the country.
This became a big issue when it was found that there were not any weapons in Iraq, and it was never said that Iraq was an immediate threat to the United States. The credibility of the first reason was no longer legitimate, and the credibility for pulling out of Iraq came from mainly Democrats who were not necessarily opposed to the war initially, but were after that information was exposed. It is believed by some that we have no reason to remain in Iraq because it is not essential to our everyday life to stay there. Some believe that it is actually hurting us financially. “No news is good news” surely applies to the Iraqi War. The media only talks about the bad aspects of the war.
The Term Paper on The Unjust War Usa And Iraq
The Unjust War USA and Iraq Dear Customer, the revised version reflects all the requests you have specified in your letter, except one. On the last, 6th page, include a copy of your notes for the other side those were your instructions, and that is why those notes are on the six page, and not disbursed throughout the essay. To include them throughout the essay would mean to restructure it ...
They show images of the people protesting, buildings getting destroyed, and death rates of Iraqi and American people. That has an influence on what frame of the war that they support. Another influence is the liberal views of celebrities and Hollywood. Most actors and directors do not support the war, and that has an affect on what view of the movement normal people have as well. In conclusion, there are many different ways to look at the Iraqi War. Good or bad, right or wrong, it is going on in our world today.
One can support whichever frame they want to, but it is all being manipulated by propaganda. The different frame makers, leaders of the movement, are going to let the public hear what helps his or her cause in order to get support.
