What motivated the United States to invade Iraq in 2003, and was it in their national interest?
RECOMMENDED READING: New York Times Major Events in the Iraq War: CLICK HERE
As you travel through this inquiry you will be presented with FOUR POSSIBLE CAUSES of the Iraq War:
As you travel through this inquiry you will be presented with FOUR POSSIBLE CAUSES of the Iraq War:
- Neo-conservatism;
- 9/11 (and the War on Terror);
- Weapons of Mass Destruction; and
- US oil interests.
LEARNING INTENTION FOR THIS PAGE: By the end of this section,
- UNDERSTAND broadly the nature of the war in Iraq;
- PRIORITISE evidence in preparation for writing;
- APPLY historical knowledge (constructed through engaging with historical evidence on this page and past pages) to discussion and historical writing;
- CREATE a coherent piece of historical writing that addresses an historical question, that demonstrates your knowledge and understanding of the topic and your grasp of historical skills in accordance with success criteria;
- REFLECT on your work in light of the feedback you receive and REVISE where necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUB-QUESTION 2: How was war waged on Iraq in 2003?
'An awesome barrage of missiles hammered Baghdad last night...' (Paul McGeough 2003, In Baghdad: A Reporter's War, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nwst, NSW, p. 25)
OPENING DISCUSSION:
2. Footage of the attack like this provoked conflicting responses around the world. Why might that have been so? Pause somewhere in the video (as if a photograph) and think of a caption that would best accompany your still in a (a) US newspaper, and (b) an Iraqi newspaper.
ACTIVITY 1: analysis of primary evidence
Eighteen months after 9/11, with the Taliban and al-Qaeda apparently defeated in Afghanistan, President Bush turned his attention to Iraq. On 19 March, he appeared on national television to make a dramatic announcement:
Extracts of President Bush's announcement of the attacks on Iraq, 19 march 2003
My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war... More than 35 countries are giving crucial support ... Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.Answer in complete sentences that incorporate the question (aids in clarification later)
... In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality...
... coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people...
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities... (www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003)
1. The president offers two reasons/motives for invading Iraq. What are they?
2. What might Bush mean by 'meet it later... on the streets of our own cities'?
3. What values does Bush promote in his speech?
4. What are three things that Bush says to reassure people that the US intentions are honourable?
5. How does Bush remind the audience of the 9/11 attacks? Why might he choose to do this?
DIFFICULT QUESTION: 6. Can you identify evidence in President Bush's announcement of a NEO-CONSERVATIVE perspective (based on the four tenets of NC: Moral clarity of good/evil; US hegemony is good for all; US should show greater willingness to use military force; International law is unreliable in achieving peace)?
Read pages 289-294 Global Voices (Hoepper et al 2009) and respond to the questions posed in the text around each source: CLICK HERE
President Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech, 1 May 2003 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, off the coast of California. Watch the 2min. clip and respond to the questions below.
2. How would you describe the emotion generated at this event? Do you think this was intentional? Why/why not?
3.. How might countries in the Middle East respond to this telecast? Why?
4. Bush states that 'major combat operations in Iraq have ended', yet US forces continued fighting in Iraq until December 2011. Why might Bush have made this comment? And what assumptions can we make about the intelligence given to the Bush administration?
For a longer version of the above speech (23min) CLICK HERE
ACTIVITY 4: 2013 BBC Documentary 'The Iraq War - Regime Change'
Collaboratively respond to the questions in the ShamblesPad below as you watch the film 'Iraq War: Regime Change'.
- The link to the online version (Full Shambles Site) can be found HERE
- You can also download the QUESTIONS in Word format HERE
- You can download possible RESPONSES to the questions in order to check your own answers: CLICK HERE
______________________________________________________________
Exam Preparation: Extended Writing Opportunity 1
Task 1: REVISION
Revise your understanding of this section by going back through the notes from and HIGHLIGHT THE EVIDENCE you might use for the writing task below. (15 minutes)
Task 2: EXTENDED WRITING
Answer the inquiry question: 'To what extent did 'neo-conservatism, the events of 9/11 and the threat of WMD influence the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003?'in an extended piece of HAND WRITING - 600-800 words using the TEECL model. You will use evidence studied so far to support your ideas. this forms part of your preparation for the upcoming Extended Response to Stimulus Exam.
NOTE: Do this first in your books/computer, then post it in the comments below for teacher/peer evaluation.
REMEMBER: You will need to incorporate seamlessly the evaluation of the evidence that you use. Often the easiest way to do this is through the introduction of the evidence. Use the the following examples as a guide to introduce your quotes/evidence in an authoritative way - to show that they are credible, useful and identify the perspective in the information:
SECONDARY EVIDENCE:
- ... as noted by Latrobe University's senior lecturer...
- University of [university name] Professor of History [name] gives an objective perspective where he states ....
- An official website for ...
- Historian [name] claims in his book ...
- ... published by the authoritative Australian Broadcasting Corporation ...
PRIMARY:
- As described by [name] who gives a primary account of ...
- ... This bias is not surprising from [name] because ...
- ... as revealed in the following witness testimony ...
- Evidence from this primary source has more weight because it provided verifiable evidence ...
- Supporting this perspective is a primary account by [name], who states that ...
SUCCESS CRITERIA: To be successful in this task you will have demonstrated the following points in your writing:
Gold - CONSISTENTLY COMMUNICATE ACCURATELY selected definitions, key historical concepts, terms, events, developments and people involved with the decision of the US to oust Saddam Hussein and subsequently invade Iraq in 2003 (Criterion 3).
- PERCEPTIVELY INTERPRET the MOTIVES for regime change and why the US led coalition subsequently waged war in Iraq (Criterion 2).
- include the concepts of CHANGE AND CONTINUITY and CAUSE AND EFFECT .
- INCORPORATE and CORROBORATE PRIMARY and SECONDARY evidence in support of your ideas (Criterion 2).
- USUALLY COMMUNICATES accurately selected definitions, key historical concepts, terms, events, developments and people involved with the regime change and the subsequent US invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Criterion 3).
- SHOW AN UNDERSTANDING of the MOTIVES for regime change and why the US led coalition subsequently waged war in Iraq (Criterion 2).
- REFER to PRIMARY and SECONDARY evidence in support of your ideas (Criterion 2).
- COMMUNICATE SOME relevant definitions, terms and key historical concepts and people, and describes the regime change and the subsequent US invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Criterion 3).
SELF/PEER/TEACHER EVALUATION:
- Unpacking the Criteria - Criterion 2 & 3: DOCUMENT LINK
PEER EVALUATION COMMENT CRITERIA:
When you give peer feedback, be sure to address the following in your commentary so that your feedback PROMOTES LEARNING and PROGRESSES your peers:- identify SPECIFIC areas in the writing - don't be too general
- comment SPECIFICALLY according to the success criteria using the language of the criteria - look for omissions or areas for improvement
- make suggestions that will improve their work - identify exactly where adjustments could be made and how you would SPECIFICALLY improve it.
- Comment on SPECIFIC successful elements of their writing - celebrate their success!
Neo-conservatism was the main influence on the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. However, the event of 9/11 and threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) aided and justified the US’ decision. During many speeches made by US President George W. Bush, Neo-conservative values, the Four Tenets of Neo-conservatism, were mostly implicitly stated. 9/11 and the threat of WMD were used to justify the decision to invade Iraq and to aid the Neoconservative 1% Doctrine.
ReplyDeleteNeo-conservatism is an American political theory of US pursuing foreign policy on behalf of morality. A Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, Yuen Foong Khong, theorised that Neo-conservatism emphasizes on four key point called the Four Tenets: 1. moral clarity between good and evil; 2. US hegemony is good for all; 3. a greater willingness to use force; and 4. international laws and institutions, such as the UN, are unreliable in achieving peace. These Neoconservative values influence the Bush administration as they are embedded in US national interests which was defined by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2000. The third tenet is shown through the first national interest, “to ensure that America’s military can deter war, project power, and fight in defense of its interests”. While the fourth tenet is displayed in the statement, “to renew strong and intimate relationships with allies who share American values and can thus share the burden of promoting peace, prosperity, and freedom”, as it implies that the nations that want to promote peace and freedom are the ones who share the American values. These values of Neo-conservatism were also implicitly displayed, on multiple occasions, within President Bush’s speeches. During Bush’s address to the nation following the attacks of 9/11, the tenet of international law is unreliable in achieving peace is shown through the statement, “America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world” . This implies that the people who want world peace and security are not international institutions but America and their friends/allies. When Bush announced the attacks on Iraq on national television, he stated that the purpose of the attacks were to, “to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” This demonstrates the tenets of moral clarity of good and evil, and US hegemony is good for all, where it is the US’ duty, as a moral hegemon, to free the people of Iraq and to defend the grave danger or in other words, evil. He also stated, “In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality…” which reinsures the fact that the enemy is immoral. At the very end of the speech, the statement, “We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines”’ was made and this shows the US’ willingness to use military forces which is another tenet of Neo-conservatism. Neo-conservatism influenced the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq but the event of 9/11 and threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) aided and justified this decision to the US public.
Well done Stephanie. You display a thorough conceptual understanding of NC thought. You then apply this well to historical evidence in support of your argument - well done! One thing I am looking for is the explicit use of the concept of CAUSE & EFFECT. You could add this element to your paragraph where you discuss Bush's speech >>> his words as causal factor for effecting the public's perception of a threat to US national security???? This would then lead well into your linking sentence on 9/11 and WMD before your next paragraph. What do you think?
DeleteMr S.
The event of 9/11 and the threat of WMD did not influence the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq but instead, they justified their decision and aided the Neoconservative 1% Doctrine. The Neoconservative 1% Doctrine argues that even with one percent of a threat, US should act to eliminate it to wage a preventative war. Within Bush’s announcement of the attacks on Iraq, he states that peace is threatens by WMD and he also reminds the US public of 9/11 event by stating, “We will meet that threat now... so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities…”. He used the WMD threat and the event of 9/11 to justify the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq as he implied that if they do not take action and invade Iraq, then the fight will be on their soil again. In the 2013 Documentary 'Hubris: Selling the Iraq War', multiple examples were shown of the Bush administration using the threat of WMD and the event of 9/11 to justify their decision. After 9/11, a photograph was found by the FBI of Muhammad Ata, a terrorist involved in 9/11, meeting a high ranking in intelligence officer. However, Mark Rossini from the FBI Terrorism Task Force stated that the man in the photo did not fit the physical description of Muhammad Ata. However, without definitive evidence, the vice-president went public with the photograph. While inspecting Iraq for WMD, the CIA discovers that Iraq is attempting to purchase 60 000 aluminum tubes. Analysts become convinced that the tubes are intended to be used in centrifuges, to make uranium for nuclear weapons. However, from the Department of Energy, Houston Wood (Nuclear scientists, University of virginia) came to the conclusion that the tubes could not be used for Gas centrifuges. Even with this new information, the CIA stuck to their positions and the White House took their perspective. This information was leaked to the New York Times in September 2002. The US also recieved a source, named Curveball, from the German government who said that he worked in the Iraq mobile weapon’s lab to create a mobile biological weapons capability to avoid detection. In the intelligence community, Curveball was known to be a fabricator and that he could not be relied upon. However, U.S relied solely on reports and they never questioned him themselves. This shows that the US did have or ignored definitive evidence to justify to the public their decision on invading Iraq.
ReplyDeleteDuring many speeches, Neoconservative values were mostly implicitly stated by US President George W. Bush. These values were the main influence on the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. While 9/11 and the threat of WMD were used to justify the decision to invade Iraq and aided the Neoconservative 1% Doctrine.
Your paragraph is great, possibly swap the paragraphs on 9/11 and WMD to create a more succinct flowing argument. I think that you need more explanation of how the tenants are apparent in the foreign policy, and you could corroborate the two sources of Condaleeza Rices policy and Bush’s 9/11 speech to add further reliability. You made really good links between the 9/11 attacks and the WMD :) I think a more detailed explanation of the sources used to support the WMD paragraph would be great, and a further link to the hypothesis in the last sentence of the WMD para is needed to solidify the claim you are making. A suggestion is to further discuss the insecurity of the US after 9/11, which can lead into the threat of WMD and why they discounted so much evidence but continued to use it in support of their argument as they were insecure after 9/11. Overall I think your paragraph is a good starting point, you just need to add in some more motives and corroboration and it will be good to go! :) :) - Nat
DeleteI agree with Nat that in your second paragraph you need to relate back to your argument more regularly. You discuss the evidence and discount the link between Saddam and WMD, but then need to relate back to your overall argument. Also, Nat is right in saying that you need to explicitly corroborate evidence here, plus incorporate the concepts of CAUSE/EFFECT e.g. Cause: 1% doctrine >>> Effect: link WMD and Saddam at all costs;
DeleteAnother thing that has not been discussed is the MOTIVE for regime change >>> in light of your argument that NC foreign policy was a causal factor in justifying war in Iraq, you need to add that the MOTIVE was the NC focus on DEMOCRATISATION >>> Tenet 1: Liberal-Democracy is good and Authoritarian Govt/Tyrranies are evil >>> Therefore, the belief was that democracy needed to be 'exported' to Iraq in the hope of spreading democracy in 'domino theory'-like way in the Middle East etc.
DeleteNeo-conservatism, 9/11 and the threat of WMD to a large extent influenced the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, however they all did so in different ways . Despite suspicions of president Bush and his government’s true motives for invasion, it can be argued that war in Iraq can be justified when analysing neo-conservatism, 9/11 and the presence of WMD in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteIt can be assumed that without the event that was 9/11, invasion of Iraq, or particularly support for invasion, would not have occurred as it did. 9/11 created a raw sense of heightened emotions among the US psyche. As Professors Brian Schmidt and Michael Williams pointed out in their credible 2008 publication ‘9/11 had dramatically shown the willingness of the terrorists to inflict large-scale destruction and death on American soil.’ After the attacks, in the words of President Bush in his national address, the horrific actions warranted a search “..to find those responsible and bring them to justice.”. In the same speech, Bush also states “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them.”. This implicit message from Bush can be explicitly seen later in a comment made by Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfield, who said “Do we focus on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, or terrorism in general?”. Essentially, the US did decide to focus on terrorism in general and invade Iraq. 9/11 gave the US government real reasons to go to war with countries that exhibited and projected terrorist tendencies.
The apparent threat of WMD in Iraq most probably represents the strongest catalyst that influenced the US government to go to war in Iraq. The presence of WMD in Iraq in the early 2000’s is often disputed, however there is evidence that supports the theory that the threat was in fact real. The United Nations Resolution 1441 for example, offers not just US, but a global and therefore less biased perspective on the subject of WMD in Iraq, and can therefore be deemed as reliable. The resolution orders Iraq to declare ‘all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems…’. Despite this global recognition, there are those who believed that there was no WMD in Iraq. The 2013 documentary titled ‘Hubris: Selling the Iraq War’ promotes this view with a one-sided perspective. The documentary in one section mentions that metal cylinders found in Iraq obtained by US intelligence could not in fact, according to experts, be used for the production of nuclear weapons. However, the video fleetingly skips over a comment made that the cylinders, even though they could not be used for nuclear weapons, could still be used for weapons in the general term. Even through this bias source, it can still be deduced that there was in fact a high chance that WMD were in Iraq, and that the US could reasonably justify their decision to invade Iraq due to the threat of WMD.
Neo-conservatism, the adopted political ideology of the Bush administration, had considerable influence over the decision to invade. As cited in Kristol & Kagan 1998 and later corroborated implicitly in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s ‘Promoting the National Interest’, the main concepts or tenets that make up neo-conservatism are: the willingness of the US to use military power, the belief that US is the essential global hegemony, the belief that democracy is good and tyrannical regimes are bad and finally the belief that global institutions and laws are not to be relied upon. These four main points can be explicitly seen in the event of invasion of Iraq, where the US projected their global leadership and willingness to use military power to eradicate the apparent ‘evil’ or ‘bad’ that was thought to be residing over Iraq. It could be safe to assume that, without the central ideals of neo-conservatism present in US government at the time, war with Iraq may not have necessarily occurred.
- The sequencing of your points could be improved - for example a increased focus on neo conservatism throughout would help to address your hypothesis in a stronger way
Delete- General corroboration of sources is good especially in the first paragraph however it could be stronger within your paragraph about WMD
- Stronger synthesis of evidence particularly in the first body paragraph and in some places throughout could be used
- Overall grammatically it is A++++
- the motives of the USA and the need for regime change could be more explicitly addressed in order to satisfy criterion 2
- This was a really good start :)))))
Firstly, you could be clearer in your hypothesis/thesis argument. Instead of all three 'to a large extent', take a position and state which was most influential and why (in conjunction with the other factors) - you need a more specific argument. At present each paragraph seems quite isolated and not really related to a central thesis argument that binds them together.
DeleteI agree with Meg in terms of the sequencing... start with the concept of NC as foreign policy thought, then you can always relate back to it throughout your other paragraphs to make it more cohesive. In your paragraph on 9/11 you use evidence well to support you ideas (albeit without chronology), but you don't relate to the second dot point in the success criteria - PERCEPTIVELY INTERPRET MOTIVE FOR REGIME CHANGE... At present you only discuss the environment after 9/11, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but no real reference made to Iraq. You need to establish this motive early.
Your WMD paragraph is quite weak in terms of evidence to support your claims. You focus on one point of the Hubris film - the cylinders - but not their argument more broadly. In support of your argument that WMD were there, I expected some actual evidence to support - primary and secondary corroboration, but its not there. This needs bolstering. Also, in this paragraph you haven't related enough to the central argument and linked to the Iraq War, only in the final sentence.
Be sure to reference to which Bush speech you are referring. When you use the Rumsfield quote, you don't give any time or context. You also don't give any chronological framework to your writing - it can't be history if there is no reference to time and context.
There is no reference made to any of the historical concepts in the criteria: CHANGE/CONT. or CAUSE/EFFECT. e.g. NC foreign policy was a major CHANGE from cold war foreign policy focus of containment; WMD as CAUSAL factor for heightened fear of threat to US national security (EFFECTS).
Overall, a good start, but plenty to work on.
Mr S
Neo-conservatism is the political theory that the US is responsible on enforcing tough foreign policy to ensure that morality is upheld. This theory is built on the foundation that the US is the hegemony of the world, and therefore as a country, the US is responsible in the upkeep of a just society such as their own, and to fix others that don’t follow, which is illustrated in the 1996 Foreign Affairs article written by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, when they wrote that the US, as a stable nation should act as the global hegemony, defined as “a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others”. Without evidence, this can be misread as a blatant disregard for the individual wants of other countries under US hegemony rule, so in 1998 Kristol and Kagan wrote 4 neo-conservative tenets that were created to outline the principle behind their thoughts. The first being moral clarity between good and evil, the second being US hegemony being the best for all, the third being the US showing greater willingness to use military forces and the fourth being that international law, more explicitly the UN, is unreliable for decision making. There is direct corroboration between these tenets and the 2000 definition of US national interest made by the former secretary of state, Condaleeza Rice, a direct quote from the address being that an interest was, “to renew strong and intimate relationships with allies who share American values and can thus share the burden of promoting peace, prosperity, and freedom”, providing exclusion and perhaps labelling to countries that weren’t allies with the US, as people against these beliefs. A further corroboration to the application of these tenets was the US invasion of Iraq, a nation that the US condoned as one that didn’t stand by these beliefs. These tenets, most specifically the first that focuses on the moral clarity that the US enforces, was the basis for the Bush Administration to persuade not only the US government, but their allies, media and more importantly public that they were doing what was best both for Iraq, but America.
ReplyDeleteWith neo-conservatism being the path to leadership through the Bush administration, an event like 9/11 is sure to defect all of the tenets, and push the neo-conservatives to order action. America, as labelled the hegemony of the world as previously mentioned, had a tough exterior and invincibility complex, so the sheer shock that an event like this could unfold in a strong nation such as the US, was enough to strike fear and anger into all, including President Bush himself, and perhaps ignite the first trigger for war. It’s evident in the video of his 2001 address to the people following the 9/11 attack, in which he ticks most directly, the first neo-conservative tenet. President Bush makes clear the difference between the good, the US, when he states that the US, “was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world”, which also relates to the second tenet, when compared to the bad, as he describes as, “a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts” and, “acts of mass murder”. The first tenet is also addressed when he mentions the US allies, “America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism”. This last sentence is important, because it was essentially, something that had never been done before. Intentionally or not, President Bush declared war on not a country, not a religion – he declared war on a concept, and that was a dangerous precedent following a very recent example of what terrorism is capable of.
Good use of corroboration! However, change and continuity and cause and effect could be more explicitly mentioned :)
DeleteTo be more specific, when you say "With neo-conservatism being the path to leadership through the Bush administration, an event like 9/11 is sure to defect all of the tenets, and push the neo-conservatives to order action." You could alter the sentence to explicitly say that the action the Neo-Conservatives ordered was a direct effect of the events of 9/11.
Delete"This last sentence is important, because it was essentially, something that had never been done before." Is a perfect example of when you could explicitly mention the concept of change. E.g. ...important because it demonstrated change and was essentially...
You present a clear and powerful argument at the end of your first paragraph - well done!. But it doesn't read like an introduction, more a body paragraph 1. Therefore, I suggest that you include an introduction that addresses your thesis argument and then briefly outlines the key points you will make in your essay to support it. Then, go into your first paragraph as you have it. ok?
DeleteIn terms of the second paragraph, I agree with Lillie on the points that she makes... very important to address the success criteria.
'America is labelled the world hegemon...'
In the last paragraph, you need to address the link to Iraq as this is your central argument . Despite linking to NC foreign policy thought throughout, you really only discuss 9/11 without any reference to Iraq. Maintain a consistent relationship with the thesis argument throughout - motive for Iraq War! I love the last sentence - very powerful, but then link to Iraq :)
Neo-conservatism and 9/11 may have been the foundation for the Bush Administration invading Iraq, but without the WMD argument, the US would not have been able to legally declare war in 2003. Relaying back to the four tenets, the third tenet, which encourages the US to use it’s military to pursue the goals of the government, is an important corroboration of the events and decisions of the Bush administration. WMD were very much used as a scare tactic for the public as well as their own government to gain the approval of decisions they felt were best for all parties involved, the US and Iraq alike. The 1% Doctrine, defined by Khong, was a doctrine that determined, “with a one percent chance of a grave threat materialising, the USA should treat that threat as a certainty and act to eliminate it - wage a preventative war”. Essentially, this means even evidence of WMD in any part of the globe, as global hegemony, must be dealt with immediately to stop it escalating to another terrorist attack, such as 9/11. The logic behind taking complete control in the 1% chance of terrorism, when there’s a 99% chance it’s nothing seems beyond reason, but the Bush Administration continued to build its case against Iraq and the possibility of WMD with fabrication of the truth in an attempt to win their case, a 2013 documentary, Hubris: Selling the Iraq War, bringing light to evidence the US used such as aluminium tubes they accused Iraq of using for making bombs being denied by engineers because the fit meant they could only be used for building, and yellow cake uranium being denied because there merely wasn’t enough of it to cause harm. Despite these claims being discounted, and academics such as Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber saying, “The war was clearly a project of a small clique and had to be strenuously propagated with ‘weapons of mass deception’, by exploiting the ‘politics of fear’”, the US continued to fearmonger and further take evidence that essentially had nothing to back it up to influence and hold their argument to invade Iraq in 2003.
ReplyDeleteGood job linking back to Neo-Conservatism! Perhaps you could introduce your evidence and authors along with their credentials though. For example, where you state "and academics such as Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber saying.." you could add academics in (insert their field here) Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber... To make sure you are adding more evaluation.
DeleteGOLD! A fantastic paragraph and with the advice of Lillie included, even better! But when you do alter the information around the secondary evidence from the academics noted, be sure to make note that they said this after the initial events of invasion... they stated these points in the later years of the Iraq War. Great work!
DeleteNow, you still need to conclude though!
The events of 9/11 in respect to Weapons of Mass Destruction and the neo conservatism influenced the Bush administration decision to invade Iraq war in 2003. Neo conservatism has persuaded the Bush administration due to its four tenets used to make decisions on for the American society to follow. The first is moral clarity which is where one country claims to be a good society while labelling another tyranny. In this situation the Bush administration (American government) claimed to be the good part of society while labelling the Terrorist or Iraq as the tyrants. Secondly the US hegemony will be good for all. This idea has led to the US being the biggest and strong nation this is evident in many of President Bush’s speech for example “helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment” this implies the idea that the US are a hegemon nation and need to help the less fortunate. The third tenet is “US should show greater willingness to use military force to purse its goals”. This explicitly shows that the US should use force through military action if a goal is threatened or needs to be achieved this ideology has been implied to the Iraq war as the US motives were achieved through the military. The last tenet is on world organisation are unreliable such as the United Nations this is less protonate in comparison to other tenets in the influence of Bush administration as it was based around Iraq and simply ignoring the UN opinion. Another influencing factor includes 9/11 which was a terrorist action directed at the American society through the multiple bombing of the twin towers. This was the largest influence in the Bush administration. President Bush decided after this tragic ‘accident’ that there should be a war on terrorism this ultimately opened many doors to invade countries that had any suspicious background however the public did not agree with the President. In order to win their trust things were fabricated for example Aluminium tubes. Even after expert examination was ruled out as a possible method to create nuclear bombs it was still portrayed that way this was specifically used to imply the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and would use them on America. The Bush Administration decided that the US military must go to war with Iraq so another tragedy does not happen to the United States again. This event was followed by many including yellowcake, curveball, images of Al-quad, and declassified files. Events such as 9/11 have led to a large neo-conservatism view from the United States Government on Weapons of Mass Destruction which finally led to the overall influence of President Bush’s administrative decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
ReplyDeleteNeo-conservatism: You provide your own understanding of definitions and key terms and applied it to the Bush administration’s reasoning for invading Iraq in 2003, mainly with explaining neo-conservatism through the four tenants. You explain neo-conservatism well and link it to the Iraq war; however, apart from showing some explicit and implicit views, you need more specific evidence from primary and secondary sources to support the link between the invasion in Iraq and neo-conservatism. You interpret the motives for regime change and why the US led coalition subsequently waged war in Iraq to an extent, however including more would provide further insight. There is not a lot of evidence of change and continuity and cause and effect while you talk about neo-conservatism, i.e. include why the government did something and how it affected Iraq and America.
Delete9/11: You communicate definitions of 9/11 well. Evidence is evident; however more is needed if you want to support your claim further! You don’t really incorporate and corroborate primary and secondary sources or change and continuity and cause and effect. Motives for regime change are evident but you need to be more specific and back up your claim with evidence.
No real information on WMD.
Some grammatical errors – you need to proofread your work, as well as putting it in correct essay format. Separate your body paragraphs as each one will be talking about a new topic and include an introduction and conclusion with what you are hypothesising.
I agree with all that Ellie says above.
DeleteBe careful with the concept of Neo-Conservatism, it is an idea, not a person or tangible thing. Therefore, it can't persuade Bush, as you have it in your essay. Bush can use the idea to inform his foreign policy. Is this what you mean?
Major grammatical errors here: 'This idea has led to the US being the biggest and strong nation this is evident in many of President Bush’s speech for example “helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment” this implies the idea that the US are a hegemon nation and need to help the less fortunate.' You need to use full-stops correctly. This is not the only example - proofread your work.
This section does not make sense. It jumps from 9/11 and the environment of fear to tubes. You need to discuss the link with Iraq/Saddam Hussein before you begin talking about tubes: 'President Bush decided after this tragic ‘accident’ that there should be a war on terrorism this ultimately opened many doors to invade countries that had any suspicious background however the public did not agree with the President. In order to win their trust things were fabricated for example Aluminium tubes. Even after expert examination was ruled out as a possible method to create nuclear bombs it was still portrayed that way this was specifically...'
Ellie is correct where she advises you to refer to primary and secondary evidence. There is no primary evidence in your work at all in support of your claims. At present it is a Bronze, but you have the opportunity to make it Silver or Gold with the above advice.
Mr S.
In 2003 the Bush administration made the decision to invade the nation of Iraq. This decision was the first step in beginning a conflict that would be known as the Iraq war and be a critical issue for the world throughout the 2000’s. America’s decision to do so however, to a large extent would not have occurred without three key influencing factors, firstly, neo-conservatism, secondly the events of 9/11 and finally the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
ReplyDeleteNeo-conservatism can be seen as a political theory born out of the US based on four key points, the first being the existence of good and evil with liberalism being seen as good and tyrannical leadership as bad. The second that a US hegemony is the best, thirdly that there is a greater willingness to use military force and international law is unreliable in achieving peace. This approach to politics was evident within the US before the emergence of a war on terror, as seen in former US sectary of state Condeleeza Rice’s definition of US national interest in 2000. In which it states, in point one that US national interest is, “to ensure that America’s military can deter war, project power, and fight in defence of its interests if deterrence fails” point one alone explicitly demonstrates the US’s greater willingness to use military force therefore emphasising a core tenant of neo-conservatism. This neoconservative sentiment is continued throughout the document with further implicit references to moral clarity about good and evil in the international arena as well as evidence to show the US viewed international law as unreliable. The document made reliable through its official status from the Whitehouse shows clear evidence of a neo-conservative sentiment within American politics three years before the invasion of Iraq by American troops and a year before the events of 9/11. The presence of neo-conservatism can be corroborated in President Bush’s speech after 9/11 in which he too shows a willingness to exert military power in which he states that, “we stand together to win the war against terrorism...” this can be further corroborated in the US National security strategy of 2002 in which it is stated that, “We [the United States] must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge … Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States...” This official document too demonstrated neo-conservatism through its acknowledgement of a US hegemony being good for along with the willingness to use military force to pursue goals. Therefore it is clear that without the influence of neo-conservatism as made evident through, Rice, Bush and the national security strategy. The decision of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq to a large extent would not have occurred, as the US would not have seen it as their duty to do so.
You could corroborate Condoleeza Rice's statement about US national interest with a secondary source as it would make your argument more stronger. Some sentences are a little awkward.
DeleteThe secondary source you could use is Kristol & Kagan 1998 which summarizes the four tenets or points made by condoleezza rice.
DeleteAs I said to Cassie, make you thesis argument more definitive - take a position on which was most influential and why - this needs to be your argument. A good opening paragraph 1. You use evidence well to support a clear conceptual link between NC thought and US foreign policy leading up to 2003. But I agree with Cassie - use the source she suggests to support the tenets and give some historical context to NC. Also, the linking sentence at the end is unclear.
DeleteHowever the events of 9/11 could not be ignored by the US. It was the first time ever an attack like this has been made. It highlighted to the US the seriousness of terrorists, highlighting a serious threat to the nation. This is explained explicitly through professors, Schmit and Williams in their secondary publication “Security Studies, 2008”, in which it is stated that, “In light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush administration depicted a threat environment radically different from that which existed during the Cold War. The most worrisome threats were deemed to be rogue states and terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). 9/11 had dramatically shown the willingness of terrorists to inflict large-scale destruction and death on American soil” This “large-scale destruction” as described above can be explicitly seen in primary images from the day. The incredibly emotive images broadcast across America would have left Americans with the feeling of fear along with a thirst for justice. The events of 9/11 ultimately were not something to be overlooked. This fear can be articulated by Bush in his primary speech in which the attacks on Iraq were announced. The speech can too be corroborated with Schmit 2008 in its implicit recognition of a “threat environment”. In the Speech Bush states “We will meet the threat now...so we do not have to meet it later on the streets of our cities...” This quote with its implicit reference to 9/11 combined with the fear inflicting images of 9/11 provides evidence to suggest that the events of 9/11 greatly influenced the administrations decision to launch a preventative attack on Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThe 2003 invasion of Iraq can further be attributed to the belief that Iraq was in possession of WMDs even after they were ordered to destroy them. It is still uncertain today whether or not Iraq were in possession of WMD during 2003 and some have suggested that the administration used the existence of WMD as a scapegoat to rage war on Iraq. This is made evident in the documentary selling the Iraq war, in which there is an array of evidence put forward to suggest that the Bush administration had a bias approach to any evidence put forward. This is evident when the CIA noticed that Iraq was trying to buy a large number of metal tubes, this was flagged by American intelligence as it was believed that the tubes were going to be used to make WMDS, however when assessed by engineers it was made apparent that the tubes being brought were not appropriate to make a destructive weapon with. However this was overlooked entirely by the Bush government. On the other hand however the suspicions of the US that Iraq had WMD can be justified to a certain extent as they had previously lied about possessing WMD to the United Nations in 1985. Ultimately the possibility that Iraq could posses WMD, even with little supporting evidence was enough to further springboard the US into invading Iraq in 2003.
In conclusion to a great extent the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003 can be attributed to three main causes; neo-conservatism, the events of 9/11 and WMD.
You could use other evidence to make your claims about the effect of 9/11 other than schmit. In reference to your last paragraph about WMD, you could also analyse the Hubris documentary a little more in terms of the one sided information it presented. Your synthesis is very good though and you link your ideas well.
DeleteExcellent use of evidence on 9/11 and the establishment of a 'threat environment'. But you need to establish a link in your argument between 9/11, Iraq and WMD before moving from one to the other e.g. bogus connection of Muhammad Attah (architect of 9/11) meeting with Iraqis about WMD in Hubris etc. Also include historical concept of CAUSE/EFFECT: e.g. CAUSE >>> pressure on Saddam through UN, ineffective, EFFECT >>> US led coalition of the willing seen as only way to rid the world of this 'evil' and invasion in 2003. Refer to the BBC film again for the sequencing of events and also as Cassie states, make some reference to the UN document presented by Lillie to show that Iraq were in breach of their obligations at times >>> show contentious nature of the event.
DeleteAlso, I suggest that you continue to relate back to neoconservatism in all paragraphs where appropriate. You also need to conclude more definitively. But overall, a good draft to start with.
Mr S.
The Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq was influenced primarily by their Neo-Conservative Policies, followed by the9/11 terrorist attacks and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). This is evident in Former President Bush’s Neo-Conservative policies, the insistence of the presence of WMDs in Iraq despite the lack of evidence and finally, the horror and subsequent insecurity in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
ReplyDeleteAs former US President George Bush had many policies that followed the political ideology of Neo-Conservatism, the core tenants of this largely influenced his decision to invade Iraq in 2003. The four tenants of Neo Conservatism are the belief that international peace institutions are inefficient and ineffective, the United States (US) as the world hegemon is beneficial to all, there is a definitive difference between forces of good and evil and that the US should be more willingly use their military in order to achieve their international goals. According to Kristol and Kagan (1998) explicit links have been established between the four tenants of Neo-Conservatism and the invasion of Iraq. These include the necessity to use the US military to prevent the use of WMDs, the reinforcement of US power in the Middle East through a regime change, the idea that Saddam Hussein is the head of the ‘Axis of All Evil’ and the US is the good and finally, that the UN was not needed as the ‘coalition of the willing’ would be adequate in doing what was necessary. This is further demonstrated by Condoleezza Rice’s (2000) definition on US national interest. Neo Conservatism is particularly evident in point one in which she states “(1) to ensure that America’s military can deter war, project power, and fight in defence of its interests if deterrence fails” This primary statement not only explicitly demonstrates the tenant which expresses the necessity of the US to utilise its military, but implicitly demonstrates the tenant of US hegemony through ensuring the US can ‘project power’ this tenant also becomes evident. However, not only these tenants influenced US foreign policy and the invasion of Iraq but also the belief that Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMDs.
Where you say ' according to Kristol and Kagan...', this is not according to Kristol and Kagan – they wrote documents that informed US foreign policy that included and centred around the 4 tenets as justification for invading Iraq.
DeleteEVALUATION - Also, Introduce Condoleezza Rice with title (credibility) and the perspective that she represents( representativeness)
Neo-conservatism could have a broader definition to lead into the four tenets, which is a more specific explanation of the ideology.
Delete-Good link between four tenets and real life examples (Sadam Hussein)
-Mention of Condaleeza Rice could incorporate evaluation with introduction of who she was to provide perspective/possible bias
-Good explicit/implicit evaluation of national interest
In 2003, the Bush administration put into action an invasion of Iraq, using their military, which was influenced by neo-conservatism, 9/11 and WMD. To a significant extent, neo-conservatism, the events of 9/11 and the threat of WMD influenced the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 as they believed that America was a powerful nation with military that would help with their invasion of Iraq better than any other country. President Bush and his team continuously integrated Neo-conservatism throughout their approach towards the events of 9/11, the threat of WMD and their involvement in Iraq.
ReplyDeletePresident Bush and his administration used neo-conservatism within America’s foreign policy and the invasion of Iraq, which was largely influenced by the main tenants. The core tenants, as cited in Kristol and Kagan (1998), with implicit links between former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s (2000) definition of U.S. national interest, are: the distinguishing between the forces of good and evil internationally, maintaining a strong military in numbers, having a greater willingness to use force and the belief that the United States is a great hegemon to all countries. Authors Kristol and Kagan (1998) demonstrated that there was an explicit connection between America’s justification for invading Iraq in 2003 and the four tenants of neo-conservatism. According Kristol and Kagan (1998), there were explicit links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the tenets of neo-conservative foreign policy thought, including Saddam’s possessions of WMD, where containment was not working and the only way for U.S. goals to be achieved, was through military force. This explicitly links with the third tenant of that the USA should show a greater willingness to use military force to pursue its goals. These tenants greatly influenced President Bush and his administration team to invade Iraq, especially because of the belief that Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMD, influenced by neo-conservatism.
In the first paragraph where you state, '...their invasion of Iraq better than any other country', I don’t really understand the ‘better than any other country’ part of your argument – not clear.
DeleteAlso, 'tenet' not tenant.
In body paragraph 1, Kristol & Kagan didn’t make a connection – they formulated/wrote the documents that informed and influenced US foreign policy through a neo-conservative perspective. NC is a world view – a lens, or a way of seeing the world.
"These tenants greatly influenced President Bush and his administration team to invade Iraq, especially because of the belief that Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMD, influenced by neo-conservatism." - this sentence is unclear. The tenets can't influence as they are just the ideals of a thought framework/a world view; you could argue that NC thought influenced his decision making or something like that...
At the time, the Bush administration displayed great concern for the threat of WMD in Iraq, giving “evidence” that Iraq proposed a threat of WMD to America and the rest of the world, however, as time has passed, scholars and academics believe that it was in fact not a real threat and was just used as a way to invade Iraq. From the U.S. National Security Strategy: Prevent Our Enemies From Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction (2002), stated, “…We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . .We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed.” This explicitly suggests that America was just searching for a reason to invade Iraq, providing a false sense of security for the American public, as they thought their military was protecting them from a country that was ‘evil’, hence the Neo-Conservative 1% Doctrine. This is corroborated with former member of the FBI terrorism task force Mark Rossini recounting from a primary source, classified photograph, “Muhammad Attah was a slight guy, maybe 5.5, 5.6 and skinny. The guy in the photograph was muscular and thick...That's not Muhammad Attah in the photograph." This quote explicitly states that there was in fact no link between Iraq and 9/11, where America’s evidence of Iraq being in possession of WMD’s was incorrect as this was not really the case. From this, it can be seen that the Bush administration deliberately used the threat of WMD as evidence to invade Iraq, especially after the events of 9/11, even though they probably knew that the information was not accurate.
ReplyDeleteThe events of 9/11 were a major factor in reasoning and influencing the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003. The sudden events of 9/11 shocked the American public and created a strong sense of fear throughout America as innocent Americans being killed without warning by terrorist attacks was a confronting truth that occurred in front of their eyes and literally on their television screens. This prompted President Bush to take action against these terrorists and use their military to achieve it, implicitly the third neo-conservative tenant. This is evident in President George W. Bush's address to the nation following the attacks of 11 September 2001, specifically when he states, “I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism ...” This primary quote explicitly suggests that America will bring justice and security back to their country through punishing everyone who was responsible for 9/11. The events of 9/11 greatly influenced America’s reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as it was the start of a long involvement with Iraq, and gave them evidence that Iraq was ‘responsible’.
America's contribution and efforts in acting in defence of 9/11 and the threat of WMD is largely evident through the motives of President Bush and his administration team and neo-conservatism in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It can be seen that to a significant extent, neo-conservatism, the events of 9/11 and the threat of WMD influenced the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 as they believed that America was a powerful nation with military that would help with their invasion of Iraq better than any other country. Bush and his administration largely used neo-conservatism to approach the events of 9/11 and the threat of WMD to gain support from the American public, creating a strong sense of nationalism and patriotism.
In the section where you state, 'and academics believe that it was in fact not a real threat and was just used as a way to invade Iraq. From the U.S. National Security Strategy: Prevent Our Enemies From Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction (2002), stated,...' >>> In the U.S. National Security Strategy: Prevent Our Enemies From Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction (2002), Bush’s foreign policy is clear…
DeleteWhere you introduce Muhummad Attah does not make sense. You have not explained the link in corroborations of the two sources – the corroboration does not make sense as you have it now. You haven’t explained who Muhammad Attah is or the relationship to this event… very vague and disjointed.The sources are simply positioned without any real discussion over their relevance, relationship to each other and how they support your claim.
Your last body paragraph on 9/11 as part motive best comes before the WMD discussion. Only one piece of evidence for this paragraph?
Para two: Has good corroboration in the second paragraph and mentions the explicit and implicit links however it could have had another source that is primary to show your understanding of corroborating sources.
DeletePara three: Good corroboration but could have been more explicit in saying what their individual motives as this would have shown a deeper understanding as to why the US government would be pushing for this, the tenets could have been mentioned here.
para four: maybe for this paragraph you should state that America has never had a direct attack on their soil and this shocked Americans, I think this source of Bush should be corroborated with another source.
Over all this was a really good essay however you need to add in corroboration of different types of sources such as primary with secondary or a photo in comparison to a speech.
Despite the concern the Bush administration showed with regard to WMDs many academics now believe that there were none present in Iraq in 2003, and the whole saga was manufactured as a scare tactic to give the US further reason to attack Iraq. This is demonstrated in a secondary source, the 2013 documentary ‘Hubris: Selling the Iraq War’ which presents evidence through a photograph which the US government apparently believed to be of Muhammad Attah, the leader of the 9/11 attacks, despite being informed that is was not him. Former FBI terrorism task force member, Mark Rossini stated “Muhammad Attah was a slight guy, maybe 5.5, 5.6 and skinny. The guy in the photograph was muscular and thick...That's not Muhammad Attah in the photograph.” This quote explicitly demonstrates that the Bush administration’s evidence of WMDs was faulty. This is corroborated by a statement made by an American Professor at MIT, Noam Chomsky who, in 2002, stated “the link was manufactured through unfounded claims of weapons of mass destruction, to suit neo-conservative political ends…” This primary quote explicitly claims that evidence the US government used to prove the existence of WMDs in Iraq was fabricated and therefore demonstrates that although WMDs were proven to be non-existent in Iraq, the fabricated evidence of them alone influenced the Bush administrations invasion of Iraq.
ReplyDeleteFinally, the 9/11 terrorist attacks although to a smaller extent, also influenced the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq. The very fact that 9/11 had occurred shocked many Americans, who instantly felt their safety had been breached. This spurred on former President Bush to take military action to demonstrate his ‘no-nonsense’ attitude towards those who posed a threat to America. This is demonstrated in his 2001 ‘address to the nation’ in the period that immediately followed 9/11.
“I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism...”
This quote clearly demonstrates Bush’s motivation to find those who brought harm to his people and to bring justice to them. Although Iraq is not mentioned, the statement implies that through means of intelligence and military, Bush will do anything to bring the criminals to justice, even if that means fighting a war in another country, demonstrating that the 9/11 terrorist attacks influenced his decision to invade Iraq.
The Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq was influenced primarily by their Neo-Conservative Policies, followed by the9/11 terrorist attacks and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). This is evident through the intention to further use their military, the determination to find WMDs in Iraq despite the lack of evidence presented and finally, the events of 9/11 and he subsequent man hunt the US began in order to bring justice back into the world.
"This is demonstrated in a secondary source, the 2013 documentary ‘Hubris: Selling the Iraq War’ which presents evidence through a photograph which the US government apparently believed to be of Muhammad Attah, the leader of the 9/11 attacks, despite being informed that is was not him. Former FBI terrorism task force member, Mark Rossini stated “Muhammad Attah was a slight guy, maybe 5.5, 5.6 and skinny. The guy in the photograph was muscular and thick...That's not Muhammad Attah in the photograph.” This quote explicitly demonstrates that the Bush administration’s evidence of WMDs was faulty ." >>>> This discounts the link between Saddam and 9/11, not WMD. This discussion here is not relevant to your claim, or at least not clearly explained.
DeleteIn this paragraph, you need to discuss the fabrication as motivation for invasion… incorporate cause and effect here: Cause – published threat of WMD >>> Effect – support by Britain, Australia and majority US public initially, and divert attention away from US domestic politics.
The last body paragraph best sits before the link to WMD… it would flow on from here more coherently, i.e. NC >>> influence of it on response to 9/11 >>> WMD as motive etc.
Overall, your main argument seems to be that neo-conservative foreign policy underpinned the motivation to invade, so you needed to constantly relate back to this through your discussions of other aspects, i.e. WMD and 9/11. Also, there is very little corroboration throughout Lillie. You could use more evidence in support of your claims – at present they are quite weak.
-Good cohesion & corroboration on WMD sources (documentary and Professor statement)
Delete-Cause and effect could be incorporated into WMD paragraph to tie in neo-conservatism / Condaleeza Rice source to WMD (How Neo-Conservatism shaped Bush administration decisions in foreign affairs)
-Chronology – 9/11 paragraph would fit better before WMD to provide background to attitude towards WMD
-Another source could be used in the 9/11 paragraph to corroborate President Bush’s motivation – Maybe to incorporate another perspective as I know you wanted to, you could use Osama Bin Laden’s speech in comparison to Bush’s and compare and contrast the difference in how they both speak of the US/Iraq and give insight onto motivation behind terrorism
-Terrorism definition could be incorporated after the President Bush quote to give insight into war he was waging
-Remember to always bring it back to the hypothesis – you did it really well in the last para :)
NATALIE
ReplyDeleteThe Iraq war is one of the most recent examples of the concept of power, and the influence that power nations such as America have over the rest of the world. By 2003, America had waged war on Iraq behind the Bush administration due to the influence of neo-conservatism in their government policies, the events that followed 9/11 causing insecurity throughout the nation and the threat of WMD.
The core tenants of Neo-Conservatism can be seen throughout many of the Bush administrations government policies leading up to the Iraq war. This concept was fundamental in the reason for why America waged war on Iraq by 2003. Neo-conservatism’s core tenants were Moral clarity of good/evil, US hegemony is good for all, US should show greater willingness to use military force and International law is unreliable in achieving peace. These are clearly apparent in Condoleezza Rice’s foreign policy which was released in 2000. In section two and three where she states:
“(2) to promote economic growth and political openness by extending free trade and a stable international monetary system to all committed to these principles, including in the western hemisphere, which has too often been neglected as a vital area of U.S. national interest; (3) to renew strong and intimate relationships with allies who share American values and can thus share the burden of promoting peace, prosperity, and freedom”
It is evident within these sections that Tenant 1, which emphasises the moral clarity of US, good and evil, is implicitly shown. Where she states “ To all committed to these principals” She is implicitly implying an ‘us’ and ‘them’, those committed and those who are not committed, which constitutes to a label of ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Again in the second section she discusses the American values, that they are ‘good’ and all others are to be ‘bad. With Neo-Conservatism evident in their foreign policy, it leads us to believe that the core underlying values of the Bush Administration were Neo-Conservative. Another example of Neo-Conservative thought under the Bush administration is seen in the “National security strategy: Prevent our enemies from threatening us” published in 2002, the year before America invaded Iraq. It states:
“We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . .We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed”.
The sentient within this is clearly Neo-Conservative, the first tenant is again seen when it states “We must prepare to stop rouge states”, another case of ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The united states were willing to go to war, to stop a threat of a rouge state which was different to them because of government regimes. Although they had the hegemon power, the US was still susceptible to other nations where rouge government existed. The insecurity for this threat was first clearly evident in the attacks of 9/11.
- Evaluation of Condoleezza Rice can be added when she is first mentioned (credibility and representiveness)
Delete- Great analysis of the four tenets of Neoconservatism
- Need to include the source where the aluminium pipes information came from (ie. the documentary)
- Need to proof read for grammatical and spelling errors.
- Great cause and effect link--> 9/11 caused US to lose securty which led to the WMD investigation.
-Use 'Weapons of Mass Destruct' the first time you mention it and then use WMD.
-Second paragraph is missing the linking sentence to the third paragrpah.
-Cause and Effect: faulting information that is released to the public may cause the public believe that Iraq have or are preparing WMD. This causes fear and Bush's administration will gain supporters.
You are the first to make reference to this inquiry's theme: POWER. Well done! Nice introductory sentence. But you jump then straight to your thesis argument and that's it. Could be better structured and more succinct using some further historical context.
DeleteI agree with Stephanie, you need to proof read among her other points. You could explicitly use the language of the criteria to demonstrate the cause and effect nature of the final sentence. Where you mention rogue states (implying Iraq) you should explicitly link to Iraq and that the Bush administration just needed to establish a link between 9/11, Saddam/Iraq and WMD >>> relate back to Rice national security quote again before moving into the next paragraph. You need to establish MOTIVE as stated in the success criteria.
Overall, a good body paragraph 1.
Mr S.
NATALIE
ReplyDelete9/11 was the main cause for the US’s insecurity. This event was unexpected and it provoked fear and uncertainty through the American population, Fear and uncertainty for the unknown threats which had started to surface from Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. In Bush’s initial address on 9/11 it is evident that his intentions were to stop those who were threatening the hegemon of the US, for that is what the US held most important, its power. He stated:
“I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
When he states “and those who harbour them” he opens up a political window to justify going to war. He is willing to stop anyone involved with the terrorists, including countries from where they are from, namely Iraq and its rouge political regime. After 9/11 the power nation of America lost a lot of security, they were the targets of a terrorist attack which effected millions of people globally. This impacted the Bush Administration to launch full investigations into those who were involved, and is another reason for why America waged war on Iraq by 2003.
The final reason for the US intervention into Iraq was the threat of WMD’s. the US had received multiple pieces of evidence supporting the claims that Iraq was harbouring WMD and that they were planning on using them on large scale attacks. The US’s evidence in support of this claim was although very faulting, enough for the Bush Administration to wage war. One key piece of evident that the US received was that Iraq had ordered a large amount of aluminium pipes that could potentially be used to WMD, more specifically to be used for chemical warfare. However an engineer who examined the pipes concluded that they did not have the potential to be used for WMD and were merely for construction purposes. This however was not accounted for and the Whitehouse officials soon broadcasted to all of America Iraq’s plans to purchase these pipes, ‘luckily’ the US stoped this purchase from happening. It is clear from this case that the US was not taking any risks in regard to the threat of WMD, especially after 9/11.
Through the presence of Neo-Conservative values in the US foreign policy, Bush’s address to the Nation after 9/11 and the 1% doctrine the justification for waging war on Iraq is clear. Due to the events of 9/11 and the threat of WMD the US was insecure as a hegemon nation the Bush administration used Neo-Conservative values to justify waging war on Iraq by 2003.
Very little historical evidence in these paragraph. It seems rushed and not very succinct. You don't really prove with credible evidence any link between 9/11 and Iraq, you simply state that 9/11 was the root cause for insecurity and that this insecurity meant war in Iraq - not clear. What is the connection? In the second paragraph you refer to information without referencing any source. What is this??? It all seems rushed and not very thorough - not your usual standard Nat :(
DeleteAll of your paragraphs need to link more cohesively as in the TEECL framework, they seem too independent of each other and not relating to a central argument. Maybe use NC as the binding factor and consistently refer back to it where appropriate and prioritise this in your thesis argument back in your introduction????
In these two paragraphs you have not really addressed any of the GOLD success criteria unfortunately.
Mr S.
Para two: Has good corroboration in the second paragraph and mentions the explicit and implicit links however it could have had another source that is primary to show your understanding of corroborating sources.
ReplyDeletePara three: Good corroboration but could have been more explicit in saying what their individual motives as this would have shown a deeper understanding as to why the US government would be pushing for this, the tenets could have been mentioned here.
para four: maybe for this paragraph you should state that America has never had a direct attack on their soil and this shocked Americans, I think this source of Bush should be corroborated with another source.
Over all this was a really good essay however you need to add in corroboration of different types of sources such as primary with secondary or a photo in comparison to a speech.
Sorry this was for Ellie i posted in the wrong spot :(
DeleteWithin the last decade, America has been at the centre of the “War on Terror” and has participated aggressively towards the Middle East and more specifically, Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was heavily influence by their neo-conservative ideals and in order to hide those ideals they made the events of 9/11 and the threat of WMD the apparent cause of their actions. Neo-conservatism is an ideology based around the militaristic will of power and is ingrained in US policy and national interest. It was this will to go to war that drove the US to Iraq; however, it was the events of 9/11 which first got the public and the world talking about terrorism and national security . It also got the public discussing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which is what led the public to supporting the government’s neo-conservative ideas. Neo-conservatism shaped US policy and was therefore heavily influenced Bush and his administration to invade Iraq.
ReplyDeleteNeo-conservatism is based on the belief of the effectiveness of military action and mistrust in international institutions. Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, Yuen Foong Khong stated that neo-conservatism emphasised four main points in foreign policy : “(1) the moral necessity of distinguishing between the forces of good and evil in the international arena; (2) the importance of maintaining military predominance; (3) a greater willingness to use force; and (4) a deep mistrust of international law and institutions such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organisation” (Neo-conservatism and the Sources of American Foreign Policy, Smith, S. et al. 2012). These four points can clearly be found throughout American foreign policy and their national interest which therefore means that neo-conservatism was deeply ingrained in the Bush administration and the US public. This can be corroborated with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2000 when she defined the US national interest in the post-Cold War era. Throughout the source, neo-conservatism can be seen to play a major role in the countries interactions with the world. Within the first point she states that, “….America’s military can deter war, project power, and fight in defence of its interests if deterrence fails.” (Rice, 2000)This already shows a huge reliance on military strength and force to ‘show-off’ power and to deal with difficult international affairs. Within the last point Rice makes an explicit mention of terrorist attacks and the government’s stance on them when she states, “to deal decisively with the threat of rogue regimes and hostile powers, which is increasingly taking the forms of the potential for terrorism and the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)”(Rice, 2000). The US Government’s attitude to terrorism is very clear even though 9/11 had not taken place yet. The ideology of neo-conservatism was already deeply a part of their policy before any terrorist activity took place meaning that it was neo-conservatism that drove the response and action of the Bush administration to 9/11 and the events before and after.
Excellent introduction. But where you state, 'Neo-conservatism is an ideology based around the militaristic will of power and is ingrained in US policy and national interest.' be careful, as you make it sound like it has always been this way. Realistically it was only since the 70s/80s that NC has been influencing US foreign policy. Remember to include chronology where appropriate. A strong argument though :)
DeleteA GOLD paragraph 1, well done! Nice linking sentence to the next paragraph, it really sign posts for the reader. You maintain your argument well throughout too. Good work.
The events of 9/11 caused a great change in the US public and certainly influenced the government to take action, even though it was neo-conservatism that directed their actions. During and for years after, horrific images of the 9/11 attacks were broadcasted across the world including the two images posted on the class blog. These images depicting the smoke and debris of the explosions would have left the US public and members of the government in utter shock as nothing like this had ever happened in America and certainly nothing to that scale. The general public would have felt shocked and vulnerable. Their home which they thought was the centre of security and power was now in ruins and they did not know what was going to happen next. These feelings most likely developed into anger as they wanted those responsible to be stopped and persecuted which led to supporting a military response. In the moment, it would have seemed to be the only logical response. President Bush’s address to the nation following the attacks of 11 September 2001 was of shock and sorrow for the events that took place, but was laced with neo-conservative ideas. For example he adheres to the point of neo-conservativeness (good and evil) when he stated, “Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature”. There he is explicitly calling the terrorists evil and throughout the speech he makes clear that military intervention is the only way. This proves that whilst it was 9/11 which sparked the US invading Iraq, it certainly was not was drove the US to take such violent measures, especially when considering that many revoked the government’s claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
ReplyDeleteThe existence or nonexistence of WMD is still in debate but the evidence leads to the idea that they are no threat to the US or the rest of the world which only means that yet again it was done in an attempt to promote neo-conservatism. The 2013 documentary, Hubris: Selling the Iraq War heavily revokes the idea of Iraq possessing WMD and backs it up with many primary sources and examples. One of these examples was the aluminium tubes. Iraq had purchased many aluminium tubes which the Bush administration believed could be used for chemical warfare bombs. However, Houston Wood (Nuclear Scientist) said that it took him less than 15mins to realise that the tubes could not be used for bombing as they were too think and heavy. Whilst this evidence seems very straight forward the program skips over the fact that they could be used for normal rockets but not chemical weaponry. This means that whilst they are not a real threat to the US, they have the potential to be dangerous. Instead of telling this as it was, the Bush administration chose to claim the tubes were for chemical warfare to further their neo-conservative- based wish to invade Iraq. The debate on the WMD definitely fuelled the public to want the US to stop the “terrorist threat” but the US had created that debate, based on their wish to remain as the hegemon of society and therefore respond to the issue using a neo-conservative method.
The Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was heavily influence by their neo-conservative ideals and in order to hide those ideals they made the events of 9/11 and the threat of WMD the apparent cause of their actions. The ideology of neo-conservatism was heavily responsible for the US invading Iraq but if it weren’t for the events of 9/11 and the debate of WMD, the US government would never have been given the chance to exercise that ideology.
The introduction could be more succinct, just try to introduce your argument then get straight into your main paragraphs
DeleteGreat use of change and continuity, you have linked the three factors of Neo-conservatism, 9/11 and WMD together really well. To make the argument stronger, more corroboration of primary and secondary sources could be integrated throughout, for example in your 4th paragraph when talking about the aluminium tubes, maybe also mention another piece of evidence the US used to justify the threat of WMD in Iraq?
You also did really well integrating the evaluation into the introduction of the source in some places, maybe try to do this more?
In the first paragraph here you address the threat environment well, but you jump from Bush's address after 9/11 to motive for invading Iraq without establishing the link between Iraq and 9/11 in the first place.
DeleteTopic sentence in the second paragraph is unclear and includes awkward expression. Where you state the 'neoconservative wish to invade Iraq', I think you need a motive. Perhaps the neo-conservative motive of democratisation would best suit here??? We can discuss this further in class if you like. Just let me know if you need further elaboration on this.
Your conclusion is repetitive and lacks the motive - yes NC influenced their foreign policy, but what was the motive? I would look at including democratisation here as your motive and link it as you have in your first paragraph to NC tenet 1: liberal-democracy as good/tyrannies as evil >>> Democracy installed at the hands of US military the answer to problem in Iraq and possible threat of WMD after 9/11. ok?
Mr S.
The Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 to a large extent is attributed to Neo-conservatism. However, the event of 9/11 and threat of WMD’s presence in Iraq both aided and justified the US’ decision to invade. This becomes clear in President Bush’s Neo-Conservative policies which are evident in many of his speeches where the four tenets of Neo-conservatism are implicitly stated. Neo-conservatism is based on the belief of the effectiveness of military action and mistrust of international institutions. Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, Yuen Foong Khong stated that neo-conservatism emphasised four main points in foreign policy : “(1) the moral necessity of distinguishing between the forces of good and evil in the international arena; (2) the importance of maintaining military predominance; (3) a greater willingness to use force; and (4) a deep mistrust of international law and institutions such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organisation” (Neo-conservatism and the Sources of American Foreign Policy, Smith, S. et al. 2012). The four tenets stated above become explicit throughout American foreign policy and their national interest, which leads to the conclusion that Neo-conservatism was deeply ingrained in the Bush administration and the US public. This point is supported by a primary statement by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2000 when she defined the US national interest in the post-Cold War era “(1) to ensure that America’s military can deter war, project power, and fight in defence of its interests if deterrence fails”. This primary quote both explicitly displays one of the tenets of Neo-conservatism in which states the necessity for the US to utilise its’ military and also implicitly demonstrates the tenet of US hegemony. In the same document, Rice explicitly mentions the US governments stance on terrorists attacks, “to deal decisively with the threat of rogue regimes and hostile powers, which is increasingly taking the forms of the potential for terrorism and the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)”. This implicitly shows that the ideology of Neo-conservatism was so deeply ingrained in their policies that even after the events of 9/11 and the “threat” of WMD’s in Iraq, the main influence to invading Iraq in 2003 was Neo-conservatism.
ReplyDeleteThe events of 9/11 shocked the world, America was thought to be the centre of security and power, which was now so easily brought down. The general public was left feeling vulnerable and insecure. As professors Brian Schmidt and Michael Williams stated in a publication produced in 2008 “9/11 had dramatically shown the willingness of the terrorists to inflict large-scale destruction and death on American soil.” Directly after the attacks in 2001, President Bush’s initial national address implicitly links in the tenets of Neo-conservatism. He makes a clear distinction between good and evil when he states “America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world”, which also relates to the second tenet, when he states “a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts” and, “acts of mass murder”. This implicitly shows the connection between Neo-conservatism and the US. The first tenet is also addressed when he mentions the US allies, “America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism”. This last statement is very important as it essentially is justification for the US to wage war on any country, nation or group that pose a threat to America. Whether it was intentional or not, President Bush declared war not on a country, or a religion, but on a concept.
You don't have a clear introduction. You simply lead from thesis argument into paragraph 1. Not very succinct and well structured in terms of TEECL. :(
DeleteGood paragraph 1 though. You establish a strong argument and demonstrate your conceptual understanding of NC well. You then link well to paragraph 2 - good display of TEECL :) Paragraph 2 deals well with 9/11 and links back to NC well, which shows a consistent thread of your argument throughout. Good :) It is great how you phrase the last sentence - beautiful, but can you mention the problematic nature of this and that it also opens the policy to interpretation and application on any state that harbours terrorists, not just those that were responsible for 9/11 >>> easier to target Iraq.
Great work though.
Mr S.
To further justify their invasion of Iraq the Bush Administration required more evidence that Iraq posed a threat to highlight to the people that a war on terror was the only solution. The 2013 documentary, Hubris: Selling the Iraq War heavily revokes the idea of Iraq possessing WMD and supports this claim with many primary pieces of evidence. The CIA made a discovery that Iraq was attempting to purchase 60 000 aluminium tubes. Some analysts become convinced that the tubes will be used to create centrifuges. However, Houston Wood, a nuclear scientist said that it took him less than 15mins to realise that the tubes could not be used for WMD as they were too think and heavy, coming to the conclusion that they could only be used for conventional rockets. Despite this conclusion, the CIA and the white house continue to stick with their original claim that the tubes were to be used for WMD, giving the findings to the New York Times then Dick Cheney quotes this as fact on "Meet the Press" just days later. Noam Chomsky an American Professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2002 stated “the link was manufactured through unfounded claims of weapons of mass destruction, to suit neo-conservative political ends…” This primary quote explicitly states that the Bush Administration fabricated the evidence of the presence of WMD in Iraq. It was a combination of Neo-conservatism, the events and aftermath of 9/11 and the “threat” of WMD’s in Iraq that influenced the Bush Administration to invade Iraq in 2003.
ReplyDeleteYou synthesise evidence well here to support your claim. You could include the concept of CAUSE/EFFECT explicitly with the Chomsky quote in an explanation afterwards??? But good corroboration of primary and secondary evidence. But it ends abruptly. You don't go onto to discuss the UN resolutions and the US disregard for international community outcry and invasion after Saddam supplies UN inspectors with 12000 page report to show no WMD >>> NC tenet 4. etc. abrupt end and no real conclusion. This needs addressing.
DeleteOverall, a good start.
Mr S.