Should The US Have Attacked Iraq In 2003

The US-led the invasion of Iraq in 2003 overthrowing the government of Saddam Hussein in a span of three weeks. Even though the proponents of this attack by the U.S. presents arguments on how the war liberated Iraqis from the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein, as well as the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction (WMD's), the attack by the U.S. was a bad mistake that should not have happened in the first place (Glantz 31). This paper looks into the arguments for why the United States should never have attacked Iraq in 2003.

The attack against the Iraqi nation by the U.S. put the lives of those who went to the war in danger. There are many U.S. soldiers who were deployed to go to fight the insurgents in Iraq. As a result, many Americans lost their lives. According to Chantiloupe,

“President Bush made the decision to attack Iraq with the blessing of Congress. They put the lives of more than 150,000 U.S. soldiers at risk unnecessarily because the U.S. was not at work with Iraq and neither was there any danger of being attacked with these purported weapons of mass destruction” (352). 

This would have prevented had the American government resolved for a more peaceful approach of dealing with the insurgents. A peaceful approach would have prevented a lot of innocent lives from being lost.

There are claims that the U.S. utilized faulty intelligence against Iraq to initiate the attack against Saddam Administration. Cimbala & Foster asserts that;

“The Bush Administration was accused of accepting faulty intelligence, of cherry picking from ambiguous intelligence about Iraq, or both. The influence of the Iraqi National Congress on high Bush officials prior to the outbreak of war led to further suspicions of the integrity of the Administration’s case for preventive war” (89).

Faulty intelligence made the U.S. to act on a wrong cause by going to war. Countries like France and Russia were not as well supporting the authorization of war by the UN against Iraq, favoring weapons inspections as well as sanctioning by the UN. This would have led to fewer casualties that the U.S. attack on Iraq caused.

In addition, the attack against Iraq was not moral as it acted as a threat to the human race. According to Renehan, “And then the war in Iraq launched in 2003…he also opposed that on moral grounds. He opposed the notion of pre-emptive war” (90). Violence through war was not the best for resolving the problems that man faces. Many innocent civilians in Iraq lost their lives during the U.S. attack on the insurgents. In order to protect the lives of civilians who were innocent, U.S. would have avoided going to war and dealt with the issue more peaceful.

The attack against Iraq in 2003 by the U.S. as well had negative effects of post-traumatic stress disorder among the soldiers who went to war. The prevalence of PTSD was still high even a decade after their deployment to the War. The deployment of U.S. troops negatively affected the health of many Americans, which increased the medical as well as disability costs (Dower 13). Most of the PTSD cases were as a result of experience of violent death, physical abuse, and death of colleagues during the war among the U.S. troops. As a result, the War against Saddam Hussein’s Administration led to more negative mental effects on a substantial number of Americans who went to the war.

In conclusion, it is evident that the attack by the U.S. against Iraq was not the best idea in addressing the problems that both the nations faced. The lives of many U.S. soldiers were at stake, the intelligence utilized leading to the attack was not accurate, and the war posed a threat to the human race.