Terrorism Case

Iraq War

Was it right to invade Iraq?

1) Preventative Invasion

o WMDs

o Responsibility to protect

o Democratic Domino theory

2) Implications

o Women

o Criminality

o Kurds/Civil War

Preventative Invasion

* Condoleezza Rice said following 9/11 the lesson was 'take care of threats early'

* As YEUN KHONG states Iraq was the case of taking 'caring of threats early'

* It was a preventative war, meaning Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat but could potentially in the future

* Successive National Intelligence Estimates did mistakenly say Saddam possessed chemical, biological weapons

* Was rational therefore based on their adoption of the ONE PERCENT DOCTRINE

* This argued that even with a percent chance of a grave threat materialising, the USA should treat that threat as a certainty

* JOHN MEARSHEIMER - realist. Argues deterrence would have been sufficient to prevent Saddam obtaining nuclear weapons.

* Moreover, as we are now aware that intelligence was false and a more accurate assessment would have seen that Iraq and al-Qaeda were not allies.

* The latter were opposed to secular western supported dictators in the Arab world, such as Saddam

* NETA CRAWFORD - Further still, Saddam had demonstrated rationality during first Gulf War as he had chosen not to deploy chemical weapons. Was an aggressive act and wasn't proportional

* Thus, the reality would conclude Saddam, even if he had possessed WMDs was not a credible threat and thus the invasion was not a rational response

Invaded for humanitarian reasons

* None can argue by western standards that human rights abuses weren't occurring under Saddam.

* However, the rhetoric of Responsibility to Protect only appeared after the fact (ex post facto)

* This had led JEREMY MOSES to conclude the invasion had 'nothing to do with R2P'

* However, I don't take this assessment to be an accurate assessment either

* Humanitarian reasons were used from the outset of the war, including by Tony Blair

* Was seen as dealing with brutality and repression

* ROTH - was part of the motive but 'relatively minor'

* Only 12% of rhetoric study done by MOSES saw key politicians refer to humanitarian reasons. This is in comparison to 82% that referred to security

* Without doubt when WMDs weren't found this reasoning was used all the more

* But the key question, would intervention occurred without human right abuses - undoubtedly yes

* There was no danger of genocide or ethnic cleansing

* Iraq was far from the only human rights abusing state

* Blain 'reset relations' with Gaddafi illustrating this was not a major policy concern

Democratic Domino Theory

* Another claim has been that the Iraq invasion inspired the Arab Spring

* At the time there was certainly the belief that democratising Iraq would cause a domino effect across the middle east

* Little doubt images of Saddam being humanised did contribute to the Arab Spring

* Showed vulnerability of Mubarak and Gadhafi

* But far from conclusive there is a causal link for all or even the majority.

* Democratic domino theory was definitely in minds of USA

* Similar to the domino theory with Vietnam

* Saw themselves caught up in a war with western hating Islamic ideology

o This is too simplistic view of the world

o Iraq undoubtedly tied to change of 9/11 but whether it needed to invade to change ideology of Middle East is debatable.

* Hoped it could be new tactical base for American interests instead of Saudi Arabia

* Hope it would destabilise the real enemy - Iran. Had nuclear weapons programme, as did N. Korea meaning invasion wouldn't be a easily achievable

Implications