Invade Iraq? Term Paper

Pages: 5 (2366 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: ≈ 8  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: History - Israel

In the changed scenario, unless pre-emptive action is not taken to deal with people who themselves do not adhere to any ethical considerations or international law, you are inviting trouble. So, although this argument about preemption being violation of international law may appeal to the peaceniks and 'sloppy' liberals still living in the era of the 60s, it does not adhere to the harsh realities of the twenty-first century.Buy full Download Microsoft Word File paper
for $19.77

Term Paper on Invade Iraq? Under the Terms Assignment

Another argument put forward by the opponents of military action against Iraq is that it would provoke massive negative reaction in the Muslim World. (Street, 2002) This is, again, an opinion that I do not subscribe to. To begin with, Saddam is hardly a model of a "good" Muslim. He has not been known for his piety and most Muslims can see through his crude attempts to exploit religion for gaining sympathy. Moreover, most Muslim countries, particularly his neighbors would be more than happy to see the back of Saddam Hussain since, like the typical neighborhood bully, he has always tended to threaten his weaker neighbors whenever he has not been under pressure himself. Additionally the "Arab Street" has a tendency of supporting the perceived winner. (Thomson, 2002) When Saddam Hussain had invaded Kuwait and seemed to be standing up defiantly to a mighty super power (the U.S.) many Muslims who were not directly threatened by Saddam's tyranny, found a 'hero' in him. As soon as he was humiliated in the Gulf War he was derided by the same Muslim public as a loud-mouthed fool. Some even called him an agent of CIA and the 'American colonialists' who had enabled the U.S. To gain a 'foot-hold' in the oil-rich Gulf by stationing its forces in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. Many Muslims see the West in general and America, in particular, as weak and morally corrupt societies. Decisive action against Saddam would help in gaining their respect, if not their admiration. (Thomson, 2002) As for the long-suffering people of Iraq itself, they would be the biggest beneficiaries of regime change in their country. The Iraqi people will heave a sigh of relief at getting rid of the tyrannical regime of Saddam just as the people of Afghanistan have done at the removal of the Taliban from theirs.

Another issue relates to the timing of military action against Iraq. Some people question the wisdom behind going for Saddam now when the fight against 'global terrorism' and Al-Qaeda is not yet over. Having threatened to do so and then backing off would send the wrong signal to Saddam, as he would draw the conclusion that dictators in similar situations always do: that the international community talks but does not act. Tony Blair is right when he says: "History tells us that diplomacy, not backed by the threat of force, has never worked with dictators and never will work." ("Blair's Speech..," 2002)

Many people are concerned about the possibility of the high number of casualties in the war. It is true that war is a grim and serious business and there are bound to be some lives lost, both among the combatants and innocent civilians. However, the point is that more lives are likely to be lost if Saddam Hussain is not removed from power in the near future, and at present an invasion of Iraq seems to be the only viable option to do so. The war is likely to be short and decisive since the Iraqi military and its morale has weakened considerably since the 1991 Gulf War, while the high-tech capabilities of the U.S. Army has increased manifold since then. We all know that the land offensive in the Gulf War lasted a total of 100 hours and the chances are that Saddam's regime my fold up quickly when faced by a decisive invasion this time.

In conclusion it would be fair to say that Saddam Hussain's regime presents a "clear and present danger" to the free world by the development of weapons of mass destruction. It has also been a source of sorrow and misery for the people of Iraq for a very long time. It is only possible to remove his tyrannical regime by force by a decisive and clinically executed military action. The world will be a safer place after the mission has been accomplished.


Blair's Speech to Parliament": Raw Data. Fox News Web Site. September 24, 2002. Retrieved on November 30, 2002 at,2933,63921,00.html

Does Saddam have weapons of mass destruction -- and would he use them?" (2002). USA TODAY. Retrieved on November 30, 2002 at

Falkenarth, Richard. (1998)"Unconventional Arms: The Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons." Article in Microsoft Encyclopedia Encarta, 2002.

Rothschild, Matthew. (2002). "The Case Against the Iraq War." A speech by, Editor of The Progressive Magazine. August 28, 2002. Retrieved on November 30, 2002 at

Street, Paul. (2002) "Iraq War Debate." September 28, 2002. Retrieved on November 30, 2002 at

Thomson, John R. (2002). "Defeat Saddam Now of top priority." National Review Online. November 27, 2002. Retrieved on November 30,… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Buy full paper (5 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Iraq War When I Examine the Events Term Paper

Invasion of Iraq Term Paper

Why Did the US Invade Iraq in 2003? Essay

Iraq War History Teaches Humans Lessons Term Paper

Iraq's History of Social Conflict Term Paper

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Invade Iraq?" Term Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Invade Iraq?.  (2002, December 1).  Retrieved April 4, 2020, from

MLA Format

"Invade Iraq?."  1 December 2002.  Web.  4 April 2020. <>.

Chicago Style

"Invade Iraq?."  December 1, 2002.  Accessed April 4, 2020.