Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and the Second Gulf War 2
Background Information 2
The second Gulf War (GW2) 3
Work Cited 8
Weaponsof Mass Destruction (WMD) and the Second Gulf War
WMDdescribes various weapons in which they are capable of destructing alarge scale and indiscriminating the impact’s nature, especiallyagainst civilians. The risks of these weapons have emerged to be asignificant issue in international politics. There are three maintypes of WMD they include chemical warfare agents, biologicalwarfare agents, and nuclear weapons. Moreover, a number of analystsincorporate radiological materials and missile technology along withdelivery systems for example ballistic missiles and aircraft. At thesame time as the mass killing of people fails to be a differentcharacteristic of warfare, WMD cause exceptional challenges tosecurity and peace. In the past, diverse countries have built as wellas stored deadly arsenals of chemical, nuclear, and biologicalweaponry besides the substances to manufacture them. Even ascountries have legitimately consigned to the elimination of thesestockpiles and to aspire at eliminating nuclear weapons, nine statesat present have nuclear weapons, among them, is the United States)and numerous states are thought to own biological and/or chemicalwarfare agents. The recent Gulf War saw America and Britain attackIraq the contention that Iraq was developed or had developed WMD andchemical weapons (Mearsheimer & Walt 150).
Thispaper focuses this GW2 and evaluates the aspect of WMD. The paperpresents thorough information on the GW2 and present dangers createdby biological, nuclear, and chemical weaponry. It assesses the warshistory, noteworthy governmental plans and global agreements, andpositive strategies to decrease the risks of these lethal weapons.
Besidesthe risks that are set forth by the WMD stocking, there are a numberof problems that result from the WMD spread as well as relatedtechnologies to diverse areas that incorporate more nations, NGO, andnon-state terrorist systems. The frights of terrorists using WMD rosein America and worldwide after the use of biological anthrax warfareagent in 2001 in America and prove detained by the American militaryin Afghanistan in which Al-Qaeda was enthusiastically looking fornuclear materials (RichelsonPara 3).
Ingeneral, the employment of WMD by terrorists is seen as a verydangerous move and therefore remains an issue of concern. Despitethe unavoidable doubt that surrounds any attempt to evaluate theinnumerable dangers linked to WMD, professionals are undisputed intheir certainty in which people face greater dangers that areprobable to raise, except for essential transformations in existingrules at the international, national and local level. Up till now,outside this broad agreement, an extensive gulf is between supportersand critics of up to date American administration policies withregard to the America nuclear stockpiles as well as WMDnon-proliferation approaches (Betts 31).
SecondPersian Gulf War or Iraq War, (2003 to 2011), consisted of twophases. The first one was a very short, conservatively fought betweenMarch and April in 2003. The war included forces from the U.S. alongwith Great Britain (with lesser parties from Australia and otherseveral nations) attacked Iraq and quickly overpowered Iraqi forcesbesides the paramilitary military. It was followed by a longer 2ndphase that an insurgency resisted a U.S.-led Iraq occupation.Following violence started to turn down in 2007, the U.S. steadilydecreased its military occupation in Iraq, officially carrying outits withdrawal in 2011 December (FrontlineEditor Para 7).
Thesecond Gulf War (GW2)
In2002 Bush, disputed that the susceptibility of the U.S. after the9/11 attacks, pooled with Iraq’s claimed constant control as wellas process of WMD along with its support for terrorist sets thatconsistent with the Bush government (incorporated al-Qaeda, the doersof the 9/11 attacks) made disarming Iraq a transformed main concern.UNCR insisted that Iraq readmits its assessors and that it obey allearlier declarations. Iraq emerged to adhere to the declaration,although in early on 2003 Bush along with Tony Blair, The British PMaffirmed that Iraq was really carrying on with the manufacture of WMDto hold back UN checks (TiburonPara 8).
FromAmerican independence to GW2, it is estimated that U.S. forces havebeen involved in 21 principal combats as well as in many lesser warsand operations. However, in each of these wars, the U.S. troops haveemerged victorious and upheld the country`s liberty, unselfishlygiving up their life or limb for a worthy cause. The GW2 started inMarch 2003 when a front that included U.S. and Great Britain attackedIraq with the contention of the manufacture and made WMD. ThePresident Saddam Hussein`s actions were alleged to violate of UnitedNations (UN) orders, leading to Iraq`s conquer in the GW1. The GW2just took three weeks that resulted in the overthrow of SaddamHussein`s. The invasion started with no the clear consent of the UN’sSecurity Council, and most official authorities take the outlook thatthe act infringed the U.N. Charter. The Bush government has quotedSecurity Council decrees from early on the 1990s as lawfulrationalization, although there was no obvious help in any of themfor forces act against Iraq (Yetiv 141).
AlthoughHussein had stated in early on March 2003 that he will win againstthe U.S., he went into concealing shortly following the Americanattack, speaking to his citizens merely through an infrequentaudiotape. Coalition military was capable of toppling his governmentas well as detain Iraq’s main metropolis sustaining few fatalities.Following about a month of fighting, Iraq was filled with coalitionarmed forces as well as the Saddam Hussein rule and that his Partyended. Consequently, the post-invasion Iraq epoch started (Tehranian133). About half a million American forces together with over 40thousand British forces, along with smaller armed troops from othercountries, jointly referred to as the "Coalition of theWilling," attacked Iraq mainly via a stage region in Kuwait.Bush announced the end of main war operations in May the same year.In spite of the defeat of conformist military services in Iraq, arevolt has continued an extreme revolutionary war in the country inthe years after military victory was declared, leading to thousandsof coalition forces, insurgent as well as civilian deaths (Payne,2015).
TheBush government based its underlying principle for war mainly on theclaim that Iraq had WMD and Saddam`s administration was a risk to theAmerica along with its coalition partners (Michelsonpara 10).Saddam was accused of supporting and shielding al-Qaeda, at the sametime as it was also alleged that there was a need to end anoppressive despotism and bring the democratic system to the Iraqipeople. Following the attack, no considerable proof was establishedto confirm the initial assertions concerning WMDs. The underlyingprinciples, as well as falsification of pre-war intelligence, wereheavily criticized in America and globally (Davis, 2016).
Inconsequence of the GW2, in 2005the Iraqi held multi-party voting. This saw Nouri al-Maliki be elected as the country’s Prime Ministerin the following until 2014. The al-Maliki administration passedrules, which were broadly perceived to have the result of estrangingthe Nation`s Sunni minority as well as deteriorating sectarianpressures. In 2014, during summer the ISIL (The Islamic State of Iraqand the Levant) initiated a forces offensive in the Northern part ofthe country and declared an international Islamic caliphate publicly,bringing out another armed forces reaction from America and itsassociates. The Gulf War resulted in lots of civilians and militarycasualties. Most of the casualties happened due to the revolution andcivil clashes between 2004 and ’07 (Cole 101).
In2007, The POTUS, Bush sent more American armed forces to Iraq. Thiswas referred to as the "surge," as the armed forces thrivedin the reduction of the fighting in Iraq. With the provision ofparticularly supportive of coalition military in 2007 and ’08, itremained the negative response by many Iraqi terrorists’ warlordsalong with others. These war nobles have been vigorously helping theU.S. against the rebels when beforehand they had been fightingagainst the U.S. along with their associates (Henderson, Olander &Roberts 190).
Unlikethe GW1, many Americans have enthusiastically been in opposition tothe country’s` attack as well as continued Iraq occupation (Alexapara 5).These citizens have been particularly distressed by shocks that theIraqi president by then Hussein had no as well as was notmanufacturing chemical weapons or WMD. Regardless of initialassertions by the U.S. administration, there as well has beeninsubstantial proof determined to connect Hussein to terrorism. Onthe other words, those who supported then attack rapidly experiencedthe fact that Hussein banned UNs assessors from entering Iraq todistinguish if the country was manufacturing WMD or chemical weapons.However, by this refusal, it is asserted that Hussein confirmed thathe was actually going against the UNs chatter (Herring30).
Nevertheless,as from April 2003, American forces and forces from other nationshave fought to end the aggressive confrontation in Iraq. ManyAmericans that incorporates Ohioans have fought in the GW2.Casualties rise every day, with over 4000 Americans dying in the waritself as well as in the ensuing Iraq occupation in the course ofJuly 2008. In early on August 2005, an Ohioan National Guard unitlost about twenty people at the time of a series of attacks in weeks.POTUS by then Bush affirmed that U.S. forces were to stay in Iraq toassist the novel administration draft its new constitution as well asto fight terrorism (Bingham 6).
In summary, under the presidency of Saddam Hussein, it was alleged that Iraq developed WMD that went against the UN agreement.
An independent, as well as well-researched scrutiny of the possession of WMD, reported that Iraq could gather nuclear weapons in months of getting fissile instruments from overseas sources.
However, the Iraqi threat failed to depend exclusively on the capabilities described above, but it rose due to Saddam Hussein’s violent nature of his regime.
His evidence of internal oppression, as well as external violence, gave rise to exceptional concerns regarding danger he posed.
Bingham,Jane. LivingThrough the Gulf Wars with Iraq.London: Raintree, 2013. Print.
Davis,John, ed. PresidentialPolicies and the Road to the Second Iraq War: From Forty One to FortyThree.Routledge, 2016.
Herring,Eric. Preventingthe use of weapons of mass destruction.Vol. 21. Psychology Press, 2000.
Payne,Keith B. Deterrencein the second nuclear age.University Press of Kentucky, 2015.
Tehranian,Majid. Bridginga Gulf: Peacebuilding in West Asia.London [u.a.: Tauris, 2003. Print.
Alexa.“BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq!”PoliticalInsider,October 17, 2014. Accessed Dec 11, 2016 fromhttp://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
FrontlineEditor. “Sadaam Hussein`s Weapons of Mass Destruction.”Frontline,2011. Accessed Dec 11, 2016 fromhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html
Mikkelson,David. “Words of Mass Destruction.” Snopes.com,2013. Accessed Dec 11, 2016 fromhttp://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Richelson,Jeffrey. “Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction.” The NationalSecurity Archive,February 26, 2003. Accessed Dec 11, 2016 fromhttp://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
Tiburon,Calif. “Bush, the Truth and Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.”TWSJ,Feb. 13, 2015. Accessed Dec 11, 2016 fromhttp://www.wsj.com/articles/bush-the-truth-and-iraqs-weapons-of-mass-destruction-letters-to-the-editor-1423868736
Betts,Richard K. "The new threat of mass destruction." ForeignAffairs(1998): 26-41.
Cole,Darrell. "Special Problems IV: Questions Posed by Nuclear andOther Weapons of Mass Destruction." TheAshgate Research Companion to Military Ethics(2016): 101.
Henderson,Schuyler W., William E. Olander, and Les Roberts. ". ReportingIraqi Civilian Fatalities in a Time of War." Journalism:Theory and Practice(2016): 190.
Mearsheimer,John J., and Stephen M. Walt. "An unnecessary war." ForeignPolicy134 (2003): 50.
Yetiv,Steve A. "Misperceiving US Foreign Policy in the Gulf: Raisingthe Hidden Costs of US Dependence on Oil." Journalof International Affairs69.1 (2015): 141.