Many factors contributed to the United States’ decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003. These have been thoroughly debated by academics who believe that the official government-given reasons to invade Iraq were invalid or dishonest. The main factors that contributed to the United States’ decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 were the possibility of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq links to terrorism and the war on terror, human rights responsibilities, oil, and the spread of American ideals in the Middle East. In order to prove such thesis, this essay will examine each of these factors, exploring its credibility as well as historians’ opinions on each one to validate the true factors for the United States’ decision to go to war in 2003.
The belief that weapons of mass destruction existed was seen as the main reason for the United States’ war in Iraq. It existed due to certain government documents that had been deemed by the CIA as unreliable (Wolf Blitzer, 2003). Saddam Hussein had not complied with the United Nations’ standard for human rights and mass weapons, a fact that both the United States and the United Kingdom interpreted as proof that the country had a nuclear weapons program. The United Nations had also conducted searches in previous years that suggested, although not proved, that there might have been such weapons in the country. After the invasion, it was proven that there was no new or ongoing development of nuclear weapons in the country, but old weapons of mass destruction were found. An investigation by historian and journalist Russ Baker concludes that “the Bush administration deliberately falsified evidence to build a case for war”, an idea that was backed up by the Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. The Center for Public Integrity published in 2008 that more than 900 false statements were given by American officials with regards to nuclear weapons in Iraq in order to facilitate the war process. In conclusion, while the belief that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq was true, the idea that it was a threat to the United States’ national security was widely exaggerated, and much of the evidence prior to the invasion was fabricated in attempt to go to war. Historian Ian Kershaw also claimed that “there is no self-evident threat from Iraq.” While the factor for this belief was significant in the invasion, it was used more as an excuse than as an actual reason to go to war in Iraq in 2003.
Alleged Iraqi links to terrorism as well as the war on terror were other explanations given by the United States with regards as to why they went to war in Iraq in 2003. British historian Andrew Roberts argues that the United States saw Saddam Hussein as the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East, and that if he were to be taken down, democracy would be more likely to spread around the region, reducing terrorist ties and helping the United States win the war on terror. Much like with the belief that Hussein was tied to terrorist organisations, especially Al Qaeda, which was responsible for the terrorist attack of September 11th 2001, the idea that Iraq had terrorist links made it a threat to the United States’ national security. Historian Paul Kennedy agrees that Iraqi links to terrorism, when combined with their alleged weapons of mass destruction, would justify a feel of threat felt by the United States, and consequently justify a possible invasion, especially after the United Nations search for nuclear weapons. However, this school of thought is not the only one. Historian Mark Mazower actually argues that the war in Iraq was more likely to “feed terrorism”, as opposed to eradicating it. Historian Eric Hobsbawm agrees with Mazower, saying that the excuse of the war on terror was simply not valid enough to invade Iraq. If we take these opinions into consideration as well as the fact that, after the American invasion, it was found that the rumors of these terrorist links were not as relevant as they were marketed to be by the United States government. While this factor was one of the main reasonings given by the United States in order to invade Iraq, there is a certain part of it, although not all of it, that is seen to be exaggerated, meaning that its reliability as a reason is medium at best, but it still stands as a valid situational factor.
A third factor that contributed to the United States’ decision to invade Iraq were human rights responsibilities. The American government saw Saddam Hussein’s regime as brutal, abusive, and unreliable (Andrew Roberts, ). Roberts also argues that acts of violence committed by Hussein including murder, foreign invasions, gassing of enemies, and torture of his citizens were a good enough reason for the Western world to get involved by force if needed in order to prevent Hussein to do further evil. On the other hand, other historians have argued that human rights issues were domestic problems, and that to invade due to them would be a breach of national sovereignty. Some would go as far as to say that the United States cared little for human rights- but that they had more rational interests in invading Iraq. All in all, it was an important factor that did, regardless of ulterior motives, influence the United States’ decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003.
Two further reasons suggested as factors for the United States going to war in Iraq were oil and upholding American ideals in the Middle East. In regards to oil, historian Jeff Colgan states that “Even years after the 2003 Iraq War, there is still no consensus on the degree to which oil played a role in that war.” Various world leaders, including the Australian and British Prime Ministers, as well as Bush himself deny that oil had a role in the United States invading and remaining in Iraq. However, another school of thought argues that former US Secretary of Defense publicly admitted in a conference that “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are.” (Think Progress, 2007). Mazower argues further, stating that taking down Hussein would help secure US oil imports. All in all, the lack of academic agreement in this area makes oil an unreliable factor for certainty regarding why the United States went to war. Upholding American ideals in the Middle East was yet another factor that affected the United States’ decision to go to war. American foreign policy is strongly based on promoting American ideals abroad, especially a functioning democracy. Hobsbawn argues that, in the Iraq situation, this was used more as an excuse, stating that “there was no serious plans but only a lot of editorialising about the benefits of multi-party democracy.” Professor of history Michael Burleigh believes that the American ideal rationale is true and valid, but that it will not function due to major cultural and historical differences in Middle Eastern countries when compared to the West (Steven Wright, 2007). Regardless, upholding American ideals was still an important factor contributing to the United States going to war.
In conclusion, the possibility of weapons of mass destruction, human rights, links to terrorism, the spread of American ideals, and oil were the main factors contributing to the United States’ decision to invade Iraq in 2003. These factors contributed to different extents, with weapons of mass destructions being used more as an excuse than as an actual fact, human rights being a solid contributor to the American decision, links to terrorism being standing as a valid situational factor, the spread of American ideals being valid and in line with American foreign policy, and with oil, due to a lack of scholarly consensus, being an unreliable factor.