This I’ll admit was a very interesting book that looked at what could have really caused the Iraq war and whether we really had to go to war. The book talks about the flaws with the reasons that Bush proposed for going to war with Iraq and why we haven’t had a fuller victory yet. The book basically goes into details about the four observations that arise from examining certain aspects of the war and afterwards. In the next few pages I’ll be summarizing the book then stating my analysis and opinions about ideas presented in the book. Veteran defense analyst and AEI resident fellow Thomas Donnelly wants to know the answers to the questions behind Operation: Iraqi Freedom. He states that “More than a year after President George W. Bush declared ‘mission accomplished’ in the invasion of Iraq, a fuller victory is yet to be won.
This is in part, because a fuller understanding of the war itself remains elusive.” This elusiveness is the biggest mystery of the war and because of it four key observations have emerged. Also these observations emerge after an examination of the conventional invasion of Iraq, the resulting counterinsurgency campaign and their broader significance for the global war on terrorism. It’s pretty much impossible to know America’s decision about Saddam Hussein, if you don’t understand American policy in the Middle East– from supporting him in power after the Islamist revolution in Iran, leaving him in power after the Gulf War, to removing him from power after the September 11 attacks, and, most crucially, replacing him in power with an experiment in Arab democracy. Militant Islam has been at war with the U.S. for twenty five years, it wasn’t until after Al Qaeda hit America’s heart, that the U.S. decided to wake up and take action.
The Term Paper on Arguments For War In Iraq pros
Arguments for War in Iraq (Pros) Military activity of the United States in Iraq, supported by armed forces of the UK and Spain, was initiated in March 2003, after a number of sanctions and political doctrines from the side of President G.W. Bush. In April 2003 united forces took over Baghdad and appointed a civil administrator Paul Bremer to control Iraq, as former ruler of the country Saddam ...
Therefore one of the main reasons for the war on Iraq was to strike terrorism and all involved at the roots. Bush’s initial strategy of invading and a change of regime essentially became a complete removal of regime. According to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen was comparatively easy taking into account that now they have to install a democratic and pluralistic form of Government after the people of the region know little else besides a well-entrenched dictatorship. He stated that the process is going to be a “long, hard slog.” In essence the Pentagon’s desire to fight a rapid war undercut its ability to fight a decisive war. The “just in time” nature of the plan (counterinsurgency campaign) magnified minor problems, such as heavy resistance from Saddam’s fedayeen in the south of Iraq or the delays caused by an unexpectedly persistent sandstorm. Some other difficulties were Turkey’s refusal to permit a northern front to the war.
Also the fact that a counterinsurgency campaign requires more troops and the Pentagon just didn’t have enough soldiers on the field. The book went into more detail about the other two observations, but I’ll stop with the facts of the book and move on to the part of this essay where I give and analysis of what I thought about the book. Overall I thought that the book gave some very convincing theories about the war and it made me understand a lot more about what happened during the war. We only had one view at the war when it was going on and that was from the standpoint of the news stations. I believe it’s always good to have different views on a topic, because then you can really begin to analyze the topic. As much as I enjoyed the book I believe that it was a little biased, of course every author or news station will show some bias, because they’re people.
I felt it was biased though because the author mentioned nothing of the theory that maybe it’s a war against Islam, or that Bush was avenging his father, or even the most common and controversial theory, that Bush waged this war because he wanted control over the oil fields in Iraq. The most that he criticized was the strategy that the Pentagon used during the war and in its aftermath. Frankly I didn’t know that much about the war except what I’d seen on the news, until I read this book. Like the book said it’s impossible to understand America’s decision about Saddam Hussein, if you don’t understand American policy, and I don’t understand American policy, so I don’t understand most of America’s decisions during the war. I don’t know why the author didn’t include the other theories about Bush’s war waging. I disagree that his only reason for going to war was because of 9/11, and I think the author knows this.
The Essay on United States War Iraq Hussein
Potence and Act "The gods fill with gifts to those men who want really to lose" There is not a thing more incongruous than pretending to understand History, since History is usually full of chaos, lies, and bloody tragedies. To analyze the reasons for going to a war is always a dirty task. In this essay, I will analyze Mr Bush's reasons to start a war against Iraq. I will also compare the Vietnam ...
I think that Bush always wanted to attack Iraq, and the events on 9/11 just gave him a chance to act on his plans. Although the author only gave one reason for Bush’s motives, all the reasons stated above play a role in it, no matter what people say. The statement that Bush doesn’t want to control the oil fields of the Middle East is known to everyone who’s smart enough to comprehend the information, as a lie. It may not have been his primary motivation, but was a definite motivation. Also avenging his father might be a big reason for the attack…again not the primary reason but, a motivation. Now this to me is a very controversial issue, but if true could be a huge scandal. The statement that the U.S.
is waging a war against Islam, is to me skeptical, but it’s a theory and has to be taken into account. Personally I don’t believe that it has a lot to do with that, but it’s a possibility. I agree with the author’s statement that the Pentagon did not fight a decisive war. It was done very rapidly, but I don’t think that they took into account how long we’d stay in Iraq after the war. We’ve had more casualties in time after the war than we had in the war. The Pentagon didn’t seem to realize just how hard it would be to restore order in Iraq after the war.
The Essay on The Gulf War Iraq Kuwait Iraqi
Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait so as to enhance his power base in the region. Such aggression had to be counted with the full force of the UN led primarily by the USA. The Gulf War was a classic case of good versus evil. Is this an accurate assessment of the Gulf War? The second Gulf War began on August 2, 1990 with an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and ended on March 3, 1991 when Iraq accepted a cease- ...
The war itself was well planned out, but the hunt for Saddam Hussein and the restoration process was quite sloppy. The fact that we’re still in Iraq today and everyday soldiers are dying, just goes to show that we’re not going anywhere for a while. The author also stated that we would soon be out of Iraq if we kept going along the lines we’re going, I completely disagree with this statement, because Iraq is in a state of disorder. I think the actions we are taking right now will escalate into a bigger war which will not just include Iraq. After all Nostradamus who “predicted” the 2 World Wars also predicted a third World War that would take place in the Middle East. I don’t believe in that stuff, but I do believe that this will escalate into something bigger..
