Bush Administration & Invasion of Iraq

As the sole stay superpower, the linked States has, under the aegis of the Bush governing body, finally told the valet that it exit not tolerate attacks of any kind and that it will use its military, political, and economic muscle to take action against its enemies.

The answer, therefore, to the argue question posed in this report is that the Bush Administration was right to invade Iraq when it did and in the manner that it selected. As Kenneth Adelman (2002), p. 37) localise it, "Critics cry, 'Why today?' a better question is 'Why wait?'" It was sure clear to the world (including the French, Germans, and Belgians) that Saddam ibn Talal Hussein possessed "weapons of smokestack destruction" because he had used those weapons against the Kurds of his own country and against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War.

Following the Gulf War at the outset of the 1990s, the United Nations demands that Iraq submit itself to intensified arms inspection by an world-wide panel of experts were given mere lip service by Iraq. Iraq continued to pursue a policy of developing weapons of bulk destruction and a nuclear capacity and enhancing its military, while excessively violating the human and civil rights of all those that Hussein considered to be antipathetic to his regime (Williams, 2003).

Kent, A. (2003). Changing the orbicular rules: Washington's

John Steinbruner (2003) described the invasion of Iraq as coercive pre-emption, a tenet which asserts that military force should be used to continue individual states from using and/or acquiring the technologies associated with weapons of mass destruction. The doctrine is backed by the unprecedented degree of military favorable position that the United States has acquired. It has also been accompanied by the repudiation of undischarged agreements that have long been pillars of inter earthal regulation such(prenominal) as the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As such, the new doctrine upon which much of America's foreign policy is now based projects an assertive form of American nationalism.

no hourlong works to defeat them.

In addition, as Arthur Kent (2003) pointed out, Iraq's vast crude reserves are an important resource of value to the entire world and not merely or necessarily stock-still primarily to the United States. Allowing a terrorist state to use such resources as a geopolitical weapon is not in the best interests of the world. The United States and those of her allies that have recognized the nemesis posed by a rogue state headed by a brutal dictator who condones rape and mutilation as a means of silencing his enemies justifiably responded with their strategy to oust the Saddam Hussein regime.

but power. That must be done, as Saddam constitutes

Adelman, K.L. (2002). No, let's not waste any time.

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a nation that used terror as an instrument of repression and supported terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies. The United Nations and the world community had over a decade to bring Iraq to the negotiating table in order to advance the problems caused by the Hussein regime. America was attacked by terrorist groups supported by Iraq. The invasion of Iraq represents a just war and a war of response ra
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.