If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Events in Iraq. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Events in Iraq paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Events in Iraq, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Events in Iraq paper at affordable prices with cheap essay writing service!
United States officials advanced their position for war with Iraq as a clear case of national security.
Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) located in Iraq were a threat to the United States; if not through direct military conflict, then through asymmetric terrorist action.
The Bush administration maintained that toppling Saddams regime was the only viable method to prevent terrorist organizations from acquiring Iraqi WMDs or WMD technology.
Nevermind that the administration presented no positive, credible evidence that such weapons actually existed, nor offered any reason why an invasion would prevent the movement of WMDs or WMD technology to terrorist groups. This was their reasoning, and had to be accepted at face value. For the sake of this essay I will accept their claim.
Do my essay on Events in Iraq CHEAP !
When critics blasted administration motives for war, saying US policy was based on securing oil supplies for US consumption, the reaction from officials was intense. Iraqs vast oil reserves, they replied, belonged to the Iraqi people alone. To be sure the US would secure the riches of Iraq during the campaign, but only for later use by free Iraqis.
In light of these criticisms, Bush injected another motive into rhetoric hyping our need to eliminate Saddam Hussein. This selfless motive was to free the Iraqi people... ironically, so they could enjoy the riches US generals had already prepared to secure for them, long before we announced freeing Iraqis was a top priority.
This new motive for US policy was so popular and so often repeated that by the time the war began it was hard to remember our goal was anything other than freeing Iraqis from Saddams regime.
As if to solidify this wars mission-creep it was officially named Operation Iraqi Freedom.
At the outset of hostilies, military efforts centered on capturing Iraqi oilfields as quickly as possible. This was explained as necessary to prevent sabotage. The results of sabotaging oilfields, as seen in the last Gulf War, was environmental catastrophe and loss of valuable resources. To be sure these were all very good reasons to secure Iraqi oilfields, even if they were not top priority mission objectives.
The military executed these plans with an extreme degree of professionalism and to great success.
Operations designed to liberate Iraqis quickly followed.
One might have expected that military plans directed at securing vital civil assets--- those necessary to maintain a livable freedom--- were going to be equally well thought out and executed as those for oil assets.
Unfortunately for Iraqis, this has not turned out to be the case. There has yet to be seen any plans, much less executions of plans, to secure nonmilitary or non-oil related civil assets.
In fact, gross military negligence, or ill-preparedness, in securing these assets have delayed real Iraqi freedom, as well as searches for WMDs.
The much publicized liberation of Baghdad is an excellent example.
Once the majority of Saddams forces were removed from Baghdad, Iraqis took to the streets to revel in their newfound freedom, and the international press swept in to cover their celebrations.
Some of these revelers acted out against their former oppressors by tearing down statues and images of Saddam, while others broke into or set fire to hated government buildings.
Many more Iraqis, thinking of immediate personal survival, or dreaming of future wealth, began looting. These nonreveling Iraqis looted government buildings, private businesses, museums, hospitals, as well as stealing personal belongings from fellow looters and revelers.
Some Iraqis moved against potential rivals in the new Iraq, or enacted revenge on past ethnic oppressors, resulting in murders sure to destabilize or lengthen the process of building a new and stable government.
Within hours, their new found freedom had descended into a state of chaos. Coalition soldiers did nothing to stop this wanton destruction, giving passive consent, when not actively joining in for juicy photo-ops of coalition victory.
All of the madness played out right before the cameras of the international press, astonishing viewers around the world.
When questioned about these increasingly disturbing images, US officials claimed such activities were a natural and healthy sign of a people freed from oppression. Downplaying humanitarian concerns, they explained that looting, arson, and murder are something not to be worried about as they will subside in time.
And in a surreal dismissal of well publicized imagery--- showing troops watching or aiding Iraqis in the destruction--- officials claimed soldiers could not stop Iraqis from looting because they were too busy fighting a war.
But all these explanations appear less than sincere.
If looters decided to ransack an oilfield--- unquestionably a symbolic source of Saddams wealth, and the Iraqi peoples misery--- it is highly unlikely military forces would step back and watch passively. US officials would not calmly accept such activity because Iraqis were pent up, that they would eventually stop destroying wells, and that there was still a war going on.
While looting and murder rampages are temporary, US officials must concede the destruction they cause, especially those which target vital assets, extend well past the hours of chaos in which they take place.
Vital assets, by their very nature, must be preserved from saboteurs, as well as the temporary excesses of an angry populace because they are not easily replaced once they are gone.
This is exactly why war planners made sure once oilfields were secured, troops remained in place to protect those assets despite the continuing war.
When coalition forces moved into cities, proper war planning should have equally prepared troops to secure vital civil assets, whether from deliberate sabotage or mindless civilian rioting.
As it is, key centers of urban infrastructure are of much greater value than oilfields to longterm US and Iraqi interests. Or at least they would be if our interests were those stated for going to war.
Critical to our top priority--- finding and eliminating Iraqi WMDs and WMD technology--- would have been seizing government buildings for thorough inspection by US troops. If nothing else, these buildings might have contained proof Iraq had such programs.
How much information on Iraqi WMD programs has been lost to looters and arsonists? Logically, the potential loss is as great as US claims that Iraq had WMD programs. Computers, CDROMs, paper files, all swept up in looters arms or thick black smoke, perhaps never to be seen by intelligence agents or weapons inspectors.
Perhaps they have already fallen into the wrong hands.
Does it not stand to reason that agents of Saddam, or members of terrorist groups, might have posed as looters to remove this information? Such a thing would not only make the US look like it had no grounds for war in the first place, but eliminate means of finding and tracking WMDs or people who might have known of those programs.
If US officials claims regarding WMDs were true, the looted and burning Iraqi government buildings may end up being more costly to the US, and the region, than any oilwell fires.
This is not to mention that if looters manage to find stocks of chemical or biological weapons and open them up, the entire area could be decimated. One would think the people who claimed Iraq had WMDs stored in civilian areas, would be particularly interested in stopping looting if for no other reason than to prevent that possibility.
The next highest priority of this war was to free Iraqis so they could set up a stable and secure government.
While it may be argued that peaceful anarchy is a form of freedom, chaos is not. Chaos is destruction pure and simple. Preventing chaos means securing key locations of public administration and civil services.
As hated as government buildings might have been to pent up Iraqis, the public records housed within those evil walls were invaluable to establishing a stable government through accurate accounting and civil administration.
Without such records the new government will be forced to reproduce tens of millions of public documents from scratch. And once looted, the new government will have no working equipment to reproduce those documents.
How much information, vital to proper public administration, has been lost to looters? What good will a new government be with no way of knowing who its citizens are and what utilities and properties are available to them, or how utilities are laid out?
Along with not securing the means for Iraqis to form an efficient government body, there has been absolutely no effort to secure and coordinate civil services necessary for health and safety.
It was a real hoot watching coalition forces help Iraqis tear down a statue. But it would have made more sense for them to talk to the gathering crowd and ask them to form volunteer groups of temporary police. In other words, troops could have encouraged them to use their pent up energy constructively, instead of destructively. Not as memorable a photo-op I guess, but it might have prevented the resulting negative imagery of rampant looting.
Instead of planning that important Iraqis would hold conferences to form a government from the top down, perhaps troops should have been trained to mobilize local communities to rebuild their cities from the bottom up... emergency services first.
Troops had the common sense and training to secure an airport so their forces around Baghdad could get more supplies.
What about the common sense of securing a few police and fire stations, as well as major hospitals, so that relief agencies had centers they could bring supplies to, or Iraqis could get supplies from?
What about the common sense of proactively seeking Iraqi volunteers, through simple offers of money, protection, and additional living assistance in order to direct Iraqis toward protecting and running emergency services for themselves?
In addition to freeing our forces faster, by relegating aid and security tasks to Iraqis, such efforts may have gone a long way in convincing others to stop looting, and pitch in for the community.
In truth, all of these civil assets Ive discussed--- including the enlistment and organization of Iraqi volunteers--- were the actual vital assets which should have been secured for Iraqis. They would need such things long before theyd ever need functioning oilwells.
Not surprisingly, when liberating forces did not bother securing these civil assets for Iraqis--- apparently instructed to let Iraqis sort such things out for themselves--- the coalition did not deliver real freedom at all. As witnessed, they delivered chaos... a very poor substitute which will cost everyone more than was ever necessary to pay for Iraqi freedom.
And what about the lowest priority goal for coalition troops; securing the riches of Iraq for later use by the people of Iraq? I realize that oil was seized at the outset of the war for practical reasons, but there were other riches in Iraq besides oil. There were many national assets stored within cities also in need of securing for future use by all the Iraqi people.
Iraqi antiquities--- worth billions of dollars, not to mention their historical significance--- were some of those other riches. In fact, they were Iraqs MOST IMPORTANT CULTURAL TREASURES.
Yet troops allowed these historical antiquities to be carted off by looters as if they were nothing more than fans being stolen from an office supply store.
It might be interesting to know how many priceless objects were looted by terrorist or criminal operatives just to raise money for future operations. Wouldnt it make sense for them to do something like that? For those worried about the funding of terrorist groups, please note, coalition forces just handed out billions of dollars to anyone that might have a grudge against the US, potentially turning this cultural and financial tragedy for Iraqis into a US tragedy as well.
In the final analysis, what do these successes and failures indicate about US war plans? What do they indicate about how the military trained to fulfill stated war goals?
When one contrasts the speed, care, and professionalism displayed by coalition forces securing Iraqi oil assets, with their startling sloth, negligence, and ineptitude securing Iraqi civil assets, one gets the impression that military planners held a very narrow view of what was vital to Iraqis while constructing this campaign.
Its not that planners deliberately set out to harm Iraqis, take their oil, and let WMDs slip out of our hands, but the results of not prioritizing civil assets properly or training soldiers how to secure those assets means planners might as well have done just that. Such oversights certainly lend credence to initial policy critics, that all the Bush administration cared about was oil.
Please note that this sample paper on Events in Iraq is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Events in Iraq, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on Events in Iraq will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment from cheap essay writing service and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
