War in Iraq

"The War in Iraq started in March 2003, with an invasion of Iraq by a coalition of forces led by the United States. More than fifty thousand Americans gathered at the National Mall in the center of Washington, D.C., on January 18, 2003, to protest the looming possibility of a U.S.-led war against Iraq. With chants such as ""No War for Oil,"" and placards stating ""Regime Change Starts at Home,"" the protesters were part of a massive barrage of antiwar demonstrations taking place around the United States and the world.On the same day thousands of protesters marched in Paris, shouting in English, ""Stop Bush! Stop War!"" In Moscow, Russians chanted ""U.S., Hands Off Iraq!"" and ""Yankee, Go Home!"" at a march outside the U.S. embassy. One Russian banner read ""U.S.A. Is International Terrorist No. 1."" More than four thousand people attended a peace concert in Tokyo---the largest of about ten demonstrations in Japan---and in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, hundreds of schoolchildren joined protesters to try to form a human chain to the town of Rawalpindi, six miles away. As these events illustrate, there was great opposition to the 2003 war against Iraq before it began, and even today, with Saddam Hussein's regime toppled and the war over, arguments continue over whether war was justified.Despite fervent opposition from millions of people around the world, and without the backing of the United Nations, American and British troops invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003. In justification of the preemptive attack, coalition forces cited Iraq's failure to cooperate with its UN-mandated disarmament obligations and the imminent threat it posed to international security. In a March 17, 2003, speech, U.S. president George W. Bush stated:The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.Despite these assurances, on the eve of the war, there was widespread opposition. A Gallup poll showed that half of the American population opposed the war. UN secretary-general Kofi Annan criticized the coalition's disregard of UN authority. The 2003 war ended less than two months later on May 1, with Hussein deposed, and the U.S.-led coalition overseeing reconstruction of the country. However, debate continues over the decision by the United States and Great Britain to attack Iraq. Intensifying the dispute is the fact that there has been no validation of prewar claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, thereby posing an immediate threat to world security. In a September 2003 interview, former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix argued that the war ""was not justified"" because Saddam Hussein's regime did not pose an imminent threat. ""The threat was not what it was made out to be,"" according to Blix. However, others argue that the toppling of Hussein's regime was enough justification for the war.COPYRIGHT 2007 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Point of View 1: Media Coverage of the Iraq War Has Been BiasedThe search for straight answers about the war in Iraq has not been fruitful for those hoping to obtain them from the media. Television news programs in particular have sensationalized the war and some have abandoned objectivity in favor of coverage slanted toward their opinion of the conflict. The result is an unprecedented degradation in the basic tenets of journalistic integrity. Reporting in the early days of the war for the International Herald Tribune, Michiko Kakutani observed, ""Network producers have turned real-time reporting of the 2003 war in Iraq into primetime reality TV entertainment. Rather than presenting the real horror of the war, newscasters are discussing the conflict as though it were a movie. Producers are engaging in willful sensationalism and sentimentality in an effort to keep viewers from changing channels or not watching at all.""Around the same time, the ABC News program World News Tonight, hosted by Peter Jennings, ""tilted dramatically to the left,"" Tim Graham of the Media Research Center observed. ""In a review of 234 stories on ABC's World News Tonight from January 1 to March 7, the Media Research Center found that ABC News failed its promise to serve the American people as an independent and objective observer, offering straight facts and letting the people decide. Instead, ABC employed a dangerous double standard---harshly criticizing of the Bush administration and its policies, but failing to extend that same tough critical standard to other actors in this political crisis, from congressional Democrats, to United Nations [UN] bureaucrats, to skeptical allies like France, and even to the dictatorship in Iraq.""Aside from celebrity reporters, famous people in other branches of the entertainment industry have also become entangled in war biases. Many, particularly younger or lesser-known celebrities, have experienced criticism for expressing antiwar sentiments, only to receive public support from older and more powerful stars. The country music band The Dixie Chicks were condemned, protested, banned from radio rotations, and threatened with death for their lead singer’s statement to a London audience that they were ashamed President Bush is from their home state of Texas. Rock music legend Bruce Springsteen defended them, Humanist contributor Erika Waak writes, in a posting to his website: ""The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves. To me, they're terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American. The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about---namely freedom."" Resources Graham, Tim. ""ABC News Was Biased Against the U.S. War in Iraq."" Media Bias. Ed. Stuart A. Kallen. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Kakutani, Michiko. ""The Ultimate Reality TV Show: Coverage on the War in Iraq."" Reality TV. Ed. Karen F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Waak, Erika. ""Celebrities Should Be Free to Express Their Antiwar Views."" The Peace Movement. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005.COPYRIGHT 2007 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.Point of View 2: United States Should Not Have Invaded IraqThe U.S. plan to invade Iraq faced great opposition from the international community. The invasion of Iraq undermined the rule of international law. Iraq is a sovereign nation, and interference in its internal affairs by other nations violates international law. The world community could have banned Iraqi officials from traveling abroad, frozen the assets and possessions of individuals involved in Iraqi violations of human rights, isolated the Iraqi regime politically and diplomatically, and pressed for human-rights inspections in Iraq. Furthermore, the United States will not create a democracy in Iraq. Iraq had agreed to abide by UNSC Resolution 1441 and allow UN inspectors unconditional access to all Iraqi sites. Even if the inspectors had uncovered Iraqi violations, the United Nations, not the United States, should have dealt with the matter in accordance with the UN Charter. If the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq, other Security Council members could also assert their rights to invade other states that are in violation of UNSC resolutions. By insisting on going to war to topple Saddam, the United States has become increasingly isolated in the world body. Furthermore, the Iraqi government had little incentive to cooperate with the United Nations as it became increasingly apparent that the United States had decided to use force. Since the United States did not receive UN authorization to use force against Iraq, it was an illegal act of aggression.If the United States had been serious about changing the regime in Iraq, it should have done so during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when most of the UN member states, including most Arab states, were ready to accept regime change as a way to eliminate the threat to world peace and security. War with Iraq has resulted in the death of a large number of innocent Iraqi civilians. There were alternatives to direct military intervention in Iraq. The United States should have tightened the economic embargo on materials that Iraq used in developing military programs and worked to reduce Iraq's receipt of hard currency outside UN sanctions. In addition to backing weapons inspection and human rights monitoring in Iraq, the United States should have stated far more clearly that the ouster of Saddam Hussein would make Iraq an important and valued part of the regional system. Instead of a direct military intervention, the United States could have helped the Iraqi opposition by other means. By using the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks as justification for an unrelated military campaign in Iraq, the United States aroused deep concern and strong resentment among Iraqis. The declared intention of replacing Saddam Hussein and his hated regime did not give the United States the right to occupy Iraq and impose military rule on its people.COPYRIGHT 2007 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.Point of View 3: United States Was Right to Invade IraqHad the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., on 11 September 2001 not happened, the Bush administration might not have decided to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Though the connection between al-Qaida has not been proved conclusively, there is a general relationship. Saddam supported terrorist groups fighting against Israel; he started the war against Iran in 1980; he invaded Kuwait in 1990; he had scientists making biological weapons and working at developing a nuclear program; and he used nerve gas to kill thousands of Kurdish Iraqi citizens. It is said that Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein, but the two men share a hatred of Israel and the United States, and this strong bond could have led to terrorist cooperation.Saddam was a bloody and ruthless dictator. After the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991, he violated UN resolutions, mocked the international community, carried on rearmament, and tricked UN weapons inspectors--earning Iraq a place at the top of the rogue-states list. Even if a link between Saddam and al-Qaida is never proven, it is clear that he backed terrorism at least indirectly. The overthrow of his regime is an example of free-world determination to end the power of bloody authoritarian regimes all over the world.Opponents of the Iraq invasion have asserted that governments and peoples of the Middle East have been more concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than with any threat posed by Iraq. These critics argued that the United States should help to find a solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before turning to the Iraqi problem. The Israeli-Palestinian problem is indeed the most salient issue in the Arab world. If Israel were no longer the enemy, anger might well turn to dictatorial Arab regimes. Asking for an ultimate solution to the Palestinian question as a precondition for dealing with the problem posed by Saddam Hussein gave the Iraqi dictator veto power over peace. Antiwar factions also claimed that Saddam's fall would produce instability not only in Iraq but in the whole region. Yet, refusing to attack Saddam for fear of creating regional instability favors Middle Eastern dictators more than the forces of democracy. Authoritarian regimes in the region worry that replacing Saddam's regime with a democratic government would create pressure for them to democratize as well. Maintaining the status quo thus favored Saddam Hussein, who for more than ten years used his weapons programs, military actions, and backing for terrorists to destabilize the Middle East. Saddam's fall could lead to regional stability, not instability.Maintaining the status quo in the Middle East was unacceptable. The United States could not let Saddam Hussein continue to violate UN resolutions on a daily basis and attack the American and British aircraft that patrol the no-fly zones. Separating the struggle against al-Qaida from the need to deal with Saddam was political nonsense. The war against terrorism is a true world war.COPYRIGHT 2007 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.Evaluating ContentArticles on WiseTo Social Issues are an important tool in evaluating content. When looking at controversial material that is often in disagreement, you should: Compare the information presented in fact-centered arguments· Using two articles that take an opposing stance can help you to analyze information more efficiently by pinpointing on which points two uthors disagree. For example, does one author in the pair offer more objective information to support a point? Are either or both arguments personal, with few facts presented? Is the issue discussed in general terms, or does the author discuss a small portion of the issue in great detail? For example, an author may discuss terrorism as an aberration that must be controlled, without mentioning a specific country or proposal. · Another author may focus on an infamous terrorist and discuss terrorism as it relates specifically to his actions. Either tactic may distort the issue's ramifications. Compare the information presented in vaIue-centered arguments Compare the information presented in fact-centered arguments Compare the information presented in fact-centered arguments· In-depth, objective examination of opposing views is most easily done with topics that rely on fact to prove their point. But many debates center on philosophical and personal values. Issues like abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia will typically hinge more on values than on fact. · Even though it is difficult, you can still learn to evaluate these arguments. What values does the author present as important? Which values does he/she think are irrelevant or of secondary importance? How do the authors' values compare with those of the reader? When judging moral arguments, ask yourself whether your personal views changed after reading the points of view. Did reading both views inform and reinforce your opinion, or did it change slightly?"

Comments? Questions? Email Here

© HowtoAdvice.com

How to Advice .com