U.S. foreign policy in Iraq Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

U.S. foreign policy in Iraq - Essay Example The expression â€Å"the first casualty of war is the truth† would probably be appropriately applied to all of the wars between nations throughout the entire history of warfare. The Iraq war will always be branded as the only war that was based completely on lies.The truth died several deaths prior to the human deaths that occurred due to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq (March 2003 – August, 2010). As the war progressed following the 2003 invasion, the American public progressively lost confidence in the Bush administration’s war policy as they grew to understand more and more what the majority of the rest of the world had realized since the first nights bombing of Baghdad. The war is undeniably illegal as defined by the United Nations (UN) and International Court of Justice (ICJ), the two most paramount legal bodies in the world. Iraq had no link to terrorism, no weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and no legal rationale to attack. Despite this, Bush dec ided to invade the Republic of Iraq for causes deemed objectionable to the majority of other countries so he frequently relied on and utilized false information to rationalize it. He lied. This discussion will examine how the truth was a casualty early and often during the lead up to the war and outlines some of the consequences brought about by these far-reaching and deadly deceptions. Bush voiced his disagreement to the concept of ‘nation building’ during the 2000 presidential election debates but as president waged an undeclared war against a sovereign country that had neither attacked first nor threatened to. Immediately following and as a reactionary reply to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush stated the county’s intention to begin a ‘War on Terrorism’ which he portrayed as a protracted battle against those that would use terrorist actions in addition to the countries that enabled them. The eventual culmination of the selective le gal reasoning and rhetoric concerning the ‘War on Terror’ was Bush’s order of the military to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq, an illegal action on many fronts. Bush had constantly claimed that these actions were legal. First, he argued, due to language existing within the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding Iraq and secondly, the invasions were an act of self-defense which is permitted by international law. Conversely, according to Richard Perle, advisor to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and official of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, â€Å"international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone.† (Burkeman & Borger, 2003). However, this option would have been â€Å"morally unacceptable† according to the Bush administration. Bush chose to solicit then followed the advice of biased, self serving legal opinion from a low-level Justice Dept. employee despite strong disagreement by higher level personnel within the Dept. in addition to and the U.S. State Department which cautioned against ignoring international law and U.N. laws in addition to covenants of the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration was determined in its careless use of military force and disregard for laws established to by the world’s community of nations. The initial foreign incursion of the U.S. military along with the ‘coalition of the willing’ in its ‘War on Terror’ was Afghanistan, more specifically the Taliban terrorist faction based in that country. The U.S. claimed to possess ‘clear and compelling evidence,’ that the State of Afghanistan was giving refuge to terrorists, as did Iraq. However, if this assertion were true, why then didn’t the Bush administration divulge this information to the UN Security Council so as to obtain legal grounds to invade? The U.S. defended its invasion and occupation of Iraq to the countries of the world by announce, if not substanti ating, that it was a undertaking to remove WMD which endangered not only the U.S. but all other countries as