The Iraq war consisted of a short month-long invasion led by the United States to get Saddam Hussein out of power and stop the trading or potential use of weapon of mass destruction and it followed by a long insurgency. The countries had a recent history leading up the war filled with conflicts and sanctions in the 1990s. Along with those conflicts the United States also had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 and the threat it caused to their safety. These events before the war and the reactions to them caused thoughts and actions to happen that propelled the decision to invade Iraq. The strategies used by the United States and the recent history between the two states, the past support by American citizens for sanctions and actions on Iraq, and the United States acting as instrumentally rational state after 9/11 are all causes of the United States’ invasion of Iraq.
The conflict between Iraq and the United States first came about during Operation Desert Storm. The Iraqi military forces were depleted after the First Gulf War before which they had a large army and arsenal. Though the war did not overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime or Iraqi Republican Guard which possessed the most powerful weapons (Marquis 11). This caused the dispute between the two sides to continue on after the operation’s conclusion. This militarized interstate dispute caused the likelihood of another dispute or even a war to happen as the steps to war theory states that as the number of MIDs increase between two states, the more likely that the dispute will escalate to war. This is only true until a certain point, though, as data suggests that after a certain amount of conflicts that likelihood decrease (Quackenbush 207). Since the outcome between Iraq and the United State did escalate into war, it is safe to say that the number of disputes was before that point of change.
After President George H.W. Bush had instructed the people of Iraq to force Saddam Hussein to step aside at their own force, uprisings occurred where 30,0000-60,000 Shi’ites were killed. This resulted the United States and their allies to create northern and southern no fly zones. These zones covered most of the area where the Shi’ite population lived in Iraq (Marquis 12). This action of responding with more punishment due to non-compliance is an influence strategy known as bullying. Developed by Lang, influence strategies are five different types of strategies within crisis bargaining. Bullying is known as the most aggressive type and out of twenty-six occurrences of bullying, seventeen resulted in war (Quackenbush 211). The UN also agreed to sanctions placed on Iraq until they had agreed with all of the WMD program limitations. As there was still no compliance, President Bill Clinton ordered air strikes to sites of WMDs and signed an act known as the Iraq Liberation Act that provided funds to the Iraqi opposition (Gombert 12). Lastly, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the United States intelligence reports stated that Saddam Hussein was a large threat to the country and that is due to their connection to the WMDs of Al Qaeda (Gombert 168). This was ultimately responded with an invasion led by the United States which started the war.
Data and theories argue that the presence of MIDs within a dyad and the aggressive response strategy of bullying can lead to war, and that is exactly what happened in this case. The United States, along with their allies, wanted their connection to WMDs to cease and the reign of Saddam Hussein to end, but as they acted to do that, Iraq continued to disobey leading to further conflict which escalated to war.
Starting from the end of the Gulf War up until the invasion of Iraq, American citizens were sure to be paying attention to the conflict in Iraq as it escalated throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s. The opinion of these citizens at home mattered as their country’s leaders contemplated whether to increase the sanctions, increase the violence, or invade completely to overthrow the regime. Throughout this whole time, the government got “consistent majority support for military action against Iraq and for the basic proposition of invading Iraq with ground troops in an effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power” (Larson 132). Moving from overall support of the war into more specific goals, 86 percent of Americans polled thought that forcing Saddam Hussein out of power was an important goal before a UN General Assembly speech and that rose to 91 percent after (Larson 145). These two concepts being favored heavily by American citizens were exactly what president Bush planned to do: go to war and overthrow Saddam Hussein to reduce the threat of WMDs. Since they coincided, Bush would be more than likely to invade because he has the support of the American people. This all stemmed from the fear of the American people. According to a CBS News poll from March 2003, almost 70 percent of United States citizens approved of the attack on Saddam Hussein and 50 percent approved of the war even if it meant sending their son or daughter overseas to fight (Larson 155-156). 9/11 and the intelligence reports linking Saddam Hussein with WMDs instilled this fear in the people of another, or even worse attack on American soil. Because these attitudes of the majority supported what Bush wanted to do, he went on with the invasion.
The United States had never felt in more danger after 9/11 and the reports of weapons of mass destruction being given to terrorist groups by Iraq and other immediate threats from the country caused the United States to act instrumentally rational which then led to an invasion. The largest terrorist attack in the country’s history “[filled the strategic environment] with a sense of urgency and imminent danger” (Larson 174). Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, had a past of ruthless actions that caused the United States to fear him. He had used chemical weapons against his own citizens and Iranian troops, invaded Kuwait, and would not agree with the UN Security Council over resolutions that hoped to end their weapons of mass destruction programs (Larson 163).
An instrumentally rational player is one who “always makes choices they believe are consistent with their interests and objectives as they define them” (Quackenbush 48). They act on what is the best for them, and try to attain it by any means necessary. Though al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan were their main targets after the terrorist attacks, they had reasons to believe that Iraq and Osama Bin Laden were also large threats to the United States. Six days after 9/11, Bush believed that Iraq was involved and some members of the administration claimed that there was no way al Qaeda could have acted alone in the attacks. This led to the assumption that “that terrorist organizations were eager to obtain WMDs and willing to use them” (Marquis 28). This assumption itself leads to a more aggressive mindset and caused the United States to defend their land and citizens at any cost. This became known as the doctrine of preemption. President Bush first laid out this doctrine at a commencement address at West Point on June 1st, 2002. In one portion of his speech he stated, “We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.” (Marquis 28-29) This attitude basically stated that any first action by the enemy involving either the delivery of WMDs or the use of them would be extremely dangerous for the United States.
After these original claims and establishing of doctrines, Bush concluded that there was enough intelligence have a case on Saddam Hussein having WMDs and that he was a large threat to the United States as long as he was in power. All of these factors caused President Bush to not back down with his plan due to instinct and prevention of another attack that could be even worse than 9/11. President Bush and the United States military went on with the invasion on March 20th, 2003 which officially start the U.S/Iraq War. Later on, the intelligence reports President Bush used to make this decision were found to be inaccurate. They were “based on outdated and incorrect evidence, material from untrustworthy human sources, and worst-case analysis” (Larson 168). Though this was discovered after the fact, the information provided in the intelligence reports still shaped how President Bush and the United States government acted in order to protect the safety of the United States by any means necessary.
Many factors lead up to this war in Iraq that started with a month-long invasion that lasted a month leading to years of insurgence by the opposition. An escalating conflict between the two states that started with a militarized interstate dispute and led to aggressive bullying tactics by the United States increased the likelihood of the war, majority support of the American citizens, and the United States acting instrumentally rational all caused the Iraq war. Though some of these actions were based on data that was later found to be fabricated or untrue, that was unknown at the time and invasion was based on the safety of the American land and people.