The Importance of Political Power Essay Example

eliminate the dictatorial regime that went on to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. These weapons were too disastrous to the whole world as they supported the thriving of militia groups, hence undermining the basic human rights and defying the demands set by the United Nations (Murphy, 2003). To justify their actions, the US stated that it relied on the authority mandated through the 678 & 687 resolutions of the UN Security Council to employ all the available means that would compel Iraq comply with the body’s international commitments.

Before the operation, the United States in conjunction with the United Kingdom emphatically argued that Saddam Hussein, the then president of Iraq, was coming up with weapons of destruction, a move that would threaten the lives of the neighborhoods and world at large. The US stated that all the fifteen member countries constituting the UN Security Council unanimously agreed to allow Iraq a final opportunity to comply and reconsider its intentions or face dire consequences in case she refuses to comply. In 2000 elections, the campaign platform for Bush administration called for a full implementation of Iraq Liberation Act which advocated for ousting of Saddam Hussein from power. The key Bush advisors understood that invasion was the only key to maintaining control of the regional security in the Gulf region.

After the US invasion, there was no supporting evidence to prove that Iraq had any weapon programs. This was despite the exclusive research by Iraq-based survey group that involved a team constituting more than 1, 400 members (Duelfer,2004). To the contrary, the reports indicated that Iraq had long bowed to international pressure and destroyed all the major

equipment necessary for developing the alleged weapons of mass destruction. This lack of evidence linking Iraq to the development of disastrous weapons resulted to controversies right within the US and the world at large. Critics of Bush Administration criticized the government for deliberately manipulating and misusing the national intelligence in its push for the unwarranted invasion.

Ethical Issue

The US invasion of Iraq raises question issues. Despite the fact that self-defense stands as a viable instance of a just cause the self-defensive argument from the US presents a moral problem. The US could not justify the death and destruction that would have resulted from the weapons. Even after the fighting, the failure to find evidence regarding the weapons of mass destruction creates doubts regarding the threats Saddam Hussein portended. The situation present another moral question regarding the democratic consent by American citizens for their country to wage war based on such possibly flimsy information. The invasion presents the negative effects of pre-emptive war. Thus, by so doing, the US administration exercised its powers by demonstrating its capacity to impose its self-interest to another less powerful nation.
The war offers an insight on the scope of imperial power. Because the US is the world’s super power, it must not necessarily seek to achieve what it considers only good in its own sense. As a result of this, the war cost the US a considerable amount of taxpayers’ money and the president’s unilateral approach to fighting his perceived enemies tainted the overall goodwill previously enjoyed by the allies. It was also ethically inappropriate for the US to consider extended counterinsurgency campaigns. The campaigns did not do goodwill for people to

consent to the government’s rule of law but it only aggravated the notion that American troops came to occupy. The 2007 surge failed to foster the much sought political reconciliation but instead worked to further damage the souls of the military involved (Johnson, 2007).

Solution to Ethical Issue

One best solution to avoid such a moral dilemma is to ensure that a nation must gain all the categorical support from the citizens and the world at large before demonstrating its powerful course to other nations. According to Pelletiere (2007), the US misinterpreted the public opinion regarding the US invasion of Iraq. Such kind misinterpretation is what formed the basis for the Bush to consider unilateral approaches to war. It is important for countries with high political power to allow people decide on their own regarding their countries. The United States should have left Iraq in the most favorable conditions and allow them make a considerable progress in stabilizing their own country.

No hard cases have perfect solutions. The most effective approaches to such circumstances would involve strengthening the available efforts of enforcement, deterrence and containment rather than resorting to war. Although there are some troubling and negative consequences to this, the approach seems realistic. The approaches can work although much would need to be done. Inspections would have served as the most efficient and effective disarmament imitative if employed. For instance, during the inspection, the officials were able to establish and destroy most of the weapons than the exclusive bombing carried by the US. At that time, the inspectors discovered the ongoing nuclear program, they eliminated the many of the chemical munitions that were in use, missiles destroyed

and efforts made in uncovering some biological weapons. Containment and deterrence of the accused country would be relatively better such that it would restore the Iraq military to its former self without posing any serious threat to the neighboring countries. Stricter enforcement of military embargo and banning of unauthorized oil export would help augment an inspection regime if put in place.

Conclusion

In conclusion, power plays a significant role in influencing war and peace. Based on her political influence as the world’s super power, the US, through the former president George W Bush managed to justify her combat role in the war against Iraq. Although there are some ethical issues evident, the case study greatly proves this hypothesis. Power encourages the political leaders to use all the available opportunities to strengthen their relevance in political affairs. Alliances and coalitions would often come as a fundamental strategy to initiate the same. Just like the US formed alliances with the UK before the US invasion, world states form alliances that help to serve the immediate interests and drop them after fulfilling their purposes. While this system may sound as the best approach to encourage peace, the obligations that surround such alliances results in war in aspects that fail to conform to the national interests. In other words, it is due to the concept of power that resulted to the Iraq war. Conversely, however, if pursued with due regard to fundamental human rights, the balance of power could mean peace and stability. The US initiative to demolish the weapons of mass distraction developed by Iraq would mean could be well intentioned if they would have implemented their operations without creating

any form of humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

References

1. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.
2. Duelfer, C. (2004). Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD (Vol. 1) Central Intelligence Agency
3. Johnson, Darin EW. "2007 in Iraq: The Surge and Benchmarks-A New Way Forward." . Rev. 24 (2008): 249.
4. Murphy, S. D. (2003). Assessing the legality of invading Iraq. Geo. lJ, 92, 173.
5. Pelletiere, S. C. (2007). Losing Iraq: Insurgency and politics. Westport, Conn: Praeger Security International