| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "RUMSFELD ROLE IRAQ": |
|
|
Rumsfeld's Role in Iraq, 2005.
A look at the role that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has played in guiding America's policy on the war in Iraq.
1,258 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at how the media has labeled Secretary Rumsfeld as the prominent figure of importance in the shaping of US policy towards Iraq. He is being held solely responsible for its implementation and results. The paper explains how the success or failure of this policy will permanently be linked to him and thus affect how he will be perceived in history.
From the Paper
"The issue surrounding postwar Iraq is symptomatic of concerns regarding overall US counter terrorist measures. Political concerns deal with how well defined such measures are and how quickly and effectively they could be implemented. The war in Iraq, as an example of these broader measures, demonstrated the confusion regarding what the war on terror exactly entailed. Questions were raised after the war as to how it related to the overall war on terror, especially since none of the reasons justifying it were found to be true, such as the weapons of mass destruction claims and Saddam's supposed ties to Al-Qaeda."
| |
|
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, 2006.
Argues that the US was right to invade Iraq in 2003 because Iraq possessed and intended to use weapons of mass destruction.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This political study argues that the American cause for the invasion of Iraq was valid due to the availability of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq before 2003. American military forces invaded Iraq in 2003 due to the fact that Saddam Hussein had created, stored, and was going to attack his neighbors with various missiles and chemical based weapons. In this manner, the evidence supporting the fact that Syria had helped Saddam Hussein move the weapons before the American invasion of 2003 is presented in this study. Although the United Nations had previously thought that there was an absence for cause for the American invasion of 2003 of Iraq, the evidence is growing against these claims.
| |
|
Iraq War, 2005.
Argues that the real reasons for the war with Iraq had nothing to do with the threat Iraq posed and had everything to do with the control of the vast oil reserves in that country.
2,613 words (approx. 10.5 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 78.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This report focuses on showing how the leaders of the United States and other First World nations have blatantly attacked a sovereign nation with the sole purpose of extracting that nation?s oil reserves for the oligarchy and future positioning of the precious resource.
From the Paper
"Some history on the Iraqi nation has shown that they are and have not been financially stable even with all of this natural resource available. Iraq is actually an original member of the Ottoman Empire but was occupied by Britain during World War I. ?In stages over the next dozen years, Iraq attained its independence as a kingdom in 1932. A "republic" was proclaimed in 1958, but in actuality a series of military strongmen have ruled the country since then, the latest was Saddam Hussein.? (Iraq) In the mid 1980?s, the nation of Iraq created for itself a massive financial problem due to its high expenditures to support an eight-year war with Iran. Iraq also suffered mass destruction of their oil export facilities during that war which caused them deplete income and forced them to borrow large amounts of money from the world in an effort to maintain itself. ?Iraq suffered economic losses from the war of at least $100 billion. After hostilities ended in 1988, oil exports gradually increased with the construction of new pipelines and restoration of damaged facilities.? (Iraq)"
| |
|
The U.S. War on Iraq, 2004.
Analysis of U.S. policies toward Iraq, especially with regard to the U.S. war against Iraq.
2,749 words (approx. 11.0 pages), 14 sources, APA, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the war on Iraq and considers whether U.S. policy towards Iraq can prevail through an analysis of eight facets of this policy: international trade; weapons of mass destruction; democratization; the war against tyranny vs. the grab for oil; the ?shock and awe? tactics used at the beginning of the war; the U.S. occupation vs. liberation; whether the new government of Iraq will be Iraqi run or whether Iraq will become a puppet state; and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The analysis is performed by means of an in-depth literature review, with relevant statistical support where necessary. It is found that the war on Iraq was founded on false premises and that the current U.S. policy towards Iraq is not sustainable for the Iraqi people nor for the honor of the U.S. government.
Introduction
Methodology and Methods
Literature Review
Results and Findings
Conclusions/Discussion
From the Paper
"The war on Iraq (which some people would argue was an illegal invasion on Iraq, as it happened without regard for international law and also pre-emptively) began almost one year ago, and despite the fact that the U.S. government is trying to persuade its populace that the war is over, by making a show of handing power back to the people of Iraq (although it is not yet known who those people will be, or if those people will agree enough in the meantime to form a democratic governing body), the war is far from over. Day by day, the number of dead and the number of casualties increase in Iraq, with bombings and disagreements amongst rival Iraqi groups, most obviously the different factions of Muslims, the Shi?as and the Sunnis."
| |
|
U.S. Relations with Iraq Prior to the Invasion of Kuwait, 2002.
A discussion of the economic, military, and political aspects of Iraq-U.S. relationship during the years immediately prior to Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
2,600 words (approx. 10.4 pages), 6 sources, $ 78.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper begins with a brief historical background of Iraqi government and policies. The development of U.S. policy supporting Iraq over Iran, including issues of economic and military aid, policies on the exportation of technology to Iraq and political relations are outlined. Iraq's role in the Arab-Israeli peace process is also discussed as it relates to US policy.
From the Paper
"The emergence of the United States as the foremost Western power and the heir to British imperialism after the Second World War had made it almost inevitable that it would play a major role in the oil-rich Middle East region. Since that time the United States and Iraq have had a tumultuous and complex history, played out in the backdrop of the strategic importance of the Middle East and its vast oil resources, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Iran-Iraq dispute. For most Americans, however, the history of their country?s relationship with Iraq started with the Gulf War of 1991, UN sanctions, Saddam?s defiance, periodic bombings, and the recent description of Iraq as part of an ?Axis of Evil? by President Bush. The fact that the US-Iraq relations were not always so hostile-especially in the years immediately prior to Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait in 1990?therefore, comes as a surprise to many. Although a veil of secrecy was kept over these relations at the time, subsequent congressional and media inquiries after the Gulf War have shed considerable light on the nature of these relations - the scandal having come to be known as Iraqgate."
| |
|
The U.S. Should Not Invade Iraq, 2002.
Argues that an attack on Iraq by the United States is detrimental to U.S. and global interests and that there are much more effective ways to fight terrorism than by initiating a war with Iraq.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Over the course of the last five decades, the world has looked to the United States of America to stand up and provide a model of international leadership and stability in order to help manage international and internal military, political, and economic problems. Until now, we have acted as the world's protector, taking down bullies after they have hurt and harmed others. This year, however, or early into next, our position, to never take the first shot that will start a war will change, if George W. Bush has his way. We, as a nation, have played a direct role in the improvement of the world condition by quelling conflict wherever we could. But, Iraq, the target of our renewed aggression, will prove to be a much different animal than the others we have captured and tamed since 1945. Iraq's power is not really in its arsenal or in its military (both of which are small, primitive by comparison to the U.S., and ineffective), it is in its ability to motivate thousands if not millions of individuals to act without coordination in a violent and unpredictable manner against the United States and the rest of the western world. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate the extreme danger and relative uselessness in attacking Iraq, to show that to do so is an exercise in futility, and that we can pursue much more effective means of preventing terrorism than to stir up the hornets' nest.
| |
|
Should the U.S. Stay in Iraq?, 2006.
A discussion regarding the issue of the U.S. remaining in Iraq.
2,986 words (approx. 11.9 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 88.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews various issues relating to the U.S. presence in Iraq and discusses whether the U.S. should remain there. The paper takes a look at various factors that influence this question. The paper concludes by arguing against the continued presence of the U.S. in Iraq.
Outline:
What is the Cost of the War So Far?
Have the Bush Administration's Justifications for the Iraq War Turned out to be Valid?
Have the Bush Administration Facts and Statements Stood the Test of Accuracy?
Facts on World Wide Terror Attacks
Public Opinion: Should the U.S. still be in Iraq?
Latest Public Opinion
Retired Generals' Opinions
Should the U.S. Stay in Iraq? Can the U.S. Win in Iraq?
Should the U.S. Stay in Iraq? What is the Death Toll?
Should the U.S. Stay in Iraq? Conclusion
From the Paper
"Bush has tried to bolster the polling numbers that have show increasing distaste for the Iraq war, but every number that has been published in recent months shows he is failing, because the American people believe the war effort is failing and was perhaps wrongfully launched in the first place. "
"On September 28, 2005, four days after 100,000 protesters marched in Washington, D.C., Bush launched a "counteroffensive," Benedetto writes. Bush said then, "Our strategy is clear in Iraq. We're on the offense. We have a plan to win." And following that, Bush went on to issue 13 more speeches in Iraq, but since the news out of Iraq is so grim, and so many lives are being lost, it's hard for the president to rally support with words the American people have heard again and again."
"The news of continuing deaths cannot be overcome by speeches," said James Thurber, a political science professor at American University in Washington, D.C. Meantime, the Gallop Poll posed this "agree or not agree" statement: "The United States should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along as best they can on their own." In March, 2003, only 33% of those polled agreed, and 62% disagreed. In April, 2006, however, three years into the Iraq war, 46% agree with that statement and 51% disagree, the USA Today reports."
| |
|
Ottoman Iraq, 2007.
This paper discusses the Ottoman Empire's rule over Iraq.
2,319 words (approx. 9.3 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer takes a detailed look at the Ottoman rule in Iraq that began in 1535 and lasted until World War I. The writer notes that during this time Iraq became a central player in Ottoman religious, economic, and political developments, as it was important to Ottoman interests in protecting its lands from the Eastern threats, primarily those of modern day Iran. The writer points out that the end of Ottoman rule over Iraq left a territory that could only be ruled through dictatorships and thus political hardships. Further, the writer maintains that the progression of Ottoman influence in Iraq meant that Iraq was not able to develop as its own political entity, resulting in years of political and religious frustrations that are still manifesting themselves today.
From the Paper
"Iraq came under Ottoman rule in the 16th Century as the Ottoman's brought all the holiest cities of Islam under their domain from the Persians. The conflict over Iraq to the Ottomans was that the Ottoman Empire feared the Persians from East and thus sought to create a Sunni buffer state in opposition to the Shiite Persians of the East. The Ottomans had important territories in what would become modern day Turkey and Syria and Persia posed a direct threat to them. This means that Iraq had a political purpose for the Ottoman Empire and encouraged the Ottomans to take control of the area. Creating a buffer state would not only help with international stability and security, but the political conquest of Iraq would help to cement Ottoman control over Sunni territory and heighten Ottoman influence in the Eastern portion of their Empire while securing their borders from their main Eastern threat. "
| |
|
The Republic of Iraq:The Cradle of Civilization, 2008.
A discussion of the future of the Republic of Iraq.
1,748 words (approx. 7.0 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the promising future for the Republic of Iraq. It explains that the newly constituted democratic Iraq may currently be in a state of turmoil, but has a promising future thanks to its valiant citizens and beautiful culture. The paper looks at the geographic beauty of Iraq, as well as its history. The paper then looks at the social and cultural differences throughout Iraq and points out that there is proof that Iraq is a stabilizing country, noting the U.N. report that violence has declined from the summer of 2007 and that the Iraqi Government claims that so far 46,000 refugees have returned to their homes safely. The writer believes that one day the nation of Iraq will come back to normality and its people will lead ordinary lives and the world will truly appreciate America and Iraq's sacrifice to make the world a better place.
From the Paper
"There have been five different designs for the Iraqi flag since its establishment in 1921. The current flag was created in 2008 and is just an interim flag. Apparently, the creation of a flag is not at the top of their concerns right now. The script at the center of the flag means is pronounced Allahu Akbar, which literally means "God is Great". The script is on a bar of white, with a red bar on top and a black bar below ("Iraq"). Iraq's flag is similar to that of Syria's, Yemen's and Egypt's ("The World Fact Book: Iraq")."
| |
|
CIA and Iraq: Prelude to Invasion, 2004.
A look at how the CIA managed to build up enough of a case to convince the U.S. government and citizens of the need to invade Iraq.
2,154 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) involvement in Iraq before the 2003 invasion and how it contributed to the war with Iraq. Specifically, it contains information on the CIA's initial studies on Iraq and includes a personal opinion regarding the CIA's influence on beginning the war. It explains how the CIA's reports on Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq helped move the invasion forward and justify the war to the American people. It asks how the CIA's intelligence went so wrong and whether there are still weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq.
From the Paper
"Before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by the allied forces of Great Britain and the United States, there was a large and comprehensive political outpouring of information and material justifying the pending invasion by both American and British sources. One of the most vocal agencies in this prelude to war was America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In October 2002, the CIA released a multi-page report discussing "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," which went on to detail the various reasons why Iraq was a threat to the United States and the world."
| |
|
War in Iraq, 2007.
An analysis of the events leading up to the United States declaration of war on Iraq.
770 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the war in Iraq. It particularly focuses on the events leading up to the United States invasion of Iraq due to Iraq's continued weapons of mass destruction (WMD) development, ties to terrorism and a need for democracy to succeed the country's former dictatorship as major reasons. The paper argues that the U.S. preemptive strike on Iraq was inevitable and overdue.
From the Paper
"In addition to chemicals, Iraq possessed the capability to put legitimate vaccines and biopesticide plants to use for biological warfare. In 1995, after four years of claiming to be conducting small-scale biological research for defensive use, Iraq admitted to UN inspectors that its production of biological agents was for the purpose of weaponization. The CIA documented thirteen open-air biological weapons tests by Iraq from March 1988 to January 1991. Iraq admitted that its al-Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility was a biological warfare agent production facility. In 1996, the UN Special Commission on Iraq attempted to render the facility useless; however, the plant regained its functions in 2001 with the excuse of a Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak. This justification makes little sense given that Iraq could easily attain FMD vaccines through the UN ("Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs")."
| |
|
The War Against Iraq, 2006.
This paper discusses the war in Iraq and presents a very anti-war stance.
2,651 words (approx. 10.6 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper contends that the US-led coalition power has failed to achieve its mission in Iraq. The paper begins by explaining that when George W. Bush and Tony Blair declared war on Iraq, they proclaimed that they had solid evidence that Iraq had been trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. The paper continues that they never found these weapons and so now they have severe problems in upholding justification for the war. The paper describes the worsening situation in Iraq and includes a diary excerpt of a young Iraqi woman's suffering. The paper concludes that the war in Iraq should not have occurred because the invasion was no more than a punishment for Iraq, encouraged by American victims of 9.11 thinking, "We should do something about terrorism."
From the Paper
"The US-led coalition power has failed to achieve its mission in Iraq. From the very start, there were no persuasive reasons that justified invading Iraq. Not only did the coalition make unreasonable demands on a sovereign country, the coalition never found menacing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and never proved its allegation that the Iraqi government was connected with Al-Qaeda. Failing to provide evidence for these charges, the leaders of the coalition power and some pro-war scholars have begun positioning the war in another way. Instead of admitting failure, they insist that the war was necessary to promote democracy in Iraq. Also, the US and the UK have not been successful in securing public order and peace in Iraq for the last three years after major combat ended because of their poor planning. Last, but not least, the war has not produced better results. Iraq has been brutally destroyed based on false accusations. And, Americans are not any more secure from terrorism. Because the attack on Iraq by the US-led coalition power has not met its objectives, it has been a wasted effort that should not have occurred."
| |
|
War with Iraq, 2002.
This paper discusses the risks of a U.S. war with Iraq
950 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In looking at the risks of a U.S. war with Iraq, this paper discusses the increase in the threat to national security, the destabilizatiuon of world peace and the violation of democratic principles. The author draws the conclusion that America would be violating each and every principle that it claims to uphold if it chooses to go to war with Iraq.
Outline
1. An increase in the threat to national security.
a. Mercenary and fundamentalist factions in Afghanistan that once followed U.S. wishes turned against the U.S. post the Gulf War against Iraq, ultimately leading to September 11, 2001.
b. Rise in anti-American sentiment
i. Questions over U.S. rhetoric and double standards such as categorizing Iraq and Iran as belonging to the ?axis of evil,? but continuing to turn a blind eye to terrorist activity in Pakistan within its own borders and in Kashmir.
2. Destabilization of world peace
a. U.S. action against Iraq could lead to further destabilization of the entire Middle East region, as opined by many leading experts.
b. Breakdown of international arms non-proliferation and disarmament efforts since U.S. preemptive action will lend further justification to countries of different ideological leanings to arm themselves in the interests of national self-defense.
3. Violation of democratic principles
a. The right of the people of each country to choose their preferred course of action and if so desired overthrow their own government, which has been exercised time and again in world history
i. Our own struggle to break away from British Imperialism
ii. India?s freedom of struggle against the British using non-violent principles and forms of rebellion.
iii. The increasing fall in U.S. public opinion
b. A war against an already deprived and suffering nation raises questions about humanitarian principles.
4. In conclusion, we will be violating each and every principle that we claim to uphold if we choose to go to war with Iraq.
From the Paper
"I don?t think anyone in the free world doubts that Saddam Hussein is a ?threat? to international peace. However, any military action is likely to be risky and self-defeating at this point in time. To start with, any U.S. action against Iraq and that too, without support from the UN and the international community is likely to endanger and not protect national security. For after all, let?s not forget and let?s face upto the fact that Osama was, in many ways, a creation of the U.S., who brought together a combination of communal factions and mercenaries in Afghanistan during the years of the Cold War, on the platform of anti-communism and ?jehad.? Post the end of the Cold War, however, various interested factions in the Islamic world continued to use Afghanistan and the very same U.S. creations of jehadis to spread Islamic fundamentalism."
| |
|
Invasion in Iraq, 2006.
A critique of President George W. Bush's war in Iraq.
1,420 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper studies and criticizes the Bush administration's current war in Iraq. The paper begins with the author's assertion that the only reason President Bush invaded Iraq was to secure U.S. interests in the region -- namely oil. The paper provides a review of literature, citing authors and opinion-makers who likewise oppose the war, to support the paper's thesis. Then the paper provides an analysis of several claims made by the administration to bolster its war, all of which this author refutes. The claims are: (1) that Iraq had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, (2) that Iraq had nuclear weapons, (3) that Iraq had active chemical and biological weapons and imminent plans to use them, and (4) that Iraq had mobile weapons laboratories.
Introduction
Review of Literature
The Case of Weapons of Mass Destruction
The Case of Iraqi Nuclear Weapons
The Case of Active Chemical and Biological Weapons Plans
The Case of Mobile Weapons Laboratories
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The entire Bush administration had been playing the mantra that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. David Cortright, Alistair Millar and Linda M. Gerber (2003) write, " In his January 2003 State of the Union address President Bush referred to tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and botulinum toxin and hundreds of tons of sarin, mustard gas, and VX nerve agent. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell asserted in his February presentation to the UN Security Council that Iraq was concealing efforts to redevelop weapons of mass destruction." These observations had been in contradiction with the UN investigators as they had inspected Iraq on more than 700 occasions. The UN investigators had found nothing that would support the claims being made by the Bush and Blair Administration. "Dr. Hans Blix, head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) told the Security Council on 14 February, 'So far, UNMOVIC has not found any [proscribed] weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions. . . .' (David Cortright, Alistair Millar and Linda M. Gerber, 2003)"
| |
|
Pre-Emptive Strike on Iraq, 2007.
An argument in favour of the war in Iraq.
1,065 words (approx. 4.3 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines how the U.S. preemptive strike on Iraq was both inevitable and overdue. The paper analyzes how critics of the current war in Iraq feel that the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) problem was exaggerated by the Bush administration. The paper then points out that President Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq was based on intelligence shared by previous presidential administrations. The paper further analyzes how other critics of the war point out the supposed lack of terrorist groups in Iraq. The writer argues that this could not be further from the truth and that Iraq is a state supporter of terrorism.
From the Paper
"During the Gulf War, Hussein sponsored several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. According to the U.S. Department of State, "The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait" ("Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology"). As Hussein's WMD program grew, the U.S. became more concerned that he might share new WMD technology with terrorist organizations ("Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs"). For example, Iraq had assisted in the creation of the Abu Nidal Organization, providing it training, logistical support, and funding."
|
|
|
