George Bush, a former US President, composed a memoir and named it Decision Points. He described his most significant conclusions on the issues regarding his private life and political career. A profound analysis of his memoir reveals that there are people who can greatly change the doctrines and principles that guide the governing process of the United States. In order to realize the causes of war in Iraq, there is a need to understand what President Bush’s position on the defensive warfare was; as such, these ideas are well outlined in the memoir.
President Bush clearly explained that after his election, the first objective would be to confront people who were a threat to peace and security, such as Saddam Hussein (Bush 228). Despite adopting a non-interventionism policy before, he had to change his perspective on the anarchic nature of the international system, especially after the 9/11 deadly attack. After the terrorist attack, America continued to receive a series of threats from cruel leaders opposing the western domination and actively torturing innocent civilians who failed to oppose the West. President Bush was also targeting hostile governments that were supporting terrorist groups and attacking its allies. According to Bush, the Iraqi leaders portrayed both of these negative traits, so that there was an argent need for annihilation (229).
Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq at the time when President Bush was writing the memoir. Hussein was well known for supporting the militia that terrorized Iraq and other strategic regions that they wished to control. After the 9/11 attack, Hussein congratulated the invaders and at one point attempted to kill the former president of America, George H.W. Bush (Bush 228). As defined by Bush, Saddam Hussein was subjective and irrational in his ruling, often infringing on the fundamental rights of more than five thousand Iranians who were innocent citizens. Before the 9/11 attack, America took seriously the role of protecting its citizens and guaranteeing the territorial integrity and sovereignty. Later on, this strategic security approach was weakened, thus making the country susceptible to attack, an aspect that Saddam Hussein contributed to. President Bush opted to wage a preventive war so that the adversaries would not have time to strategize and counter attack.
One of the best techniques that President Bush was using was diplomacy. Unfortunately, Americans and Iraqis were known to be enemies; hence, the method chosen proved unreliable. Over time, Saddam Hussein became more unfriendly to the United States and its allies (Bush 229). Saddam Hussein’s reaction, as a result, forced George W. Bush to give an order to the Secretary General to begin a war on Iraq. Such a step was taken in order to ensure that Hussein was arrested and made to face the international court for possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Terry Anderson and Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote books that provided important insights on the war in Iraq. The two authors expressed different ideas about the hostility in Iraq. In the book Bush’s Wars by Anderson, President George Bush’s persona was examined. The author argued that the president was not objective; therefore, he undoubtedly overlooked the clear signs of an oncoming attack from al-Qaeda (79). Anderson clarified that Bush did not consider any alternative ideas from the state officials and went on controlling the oil deposits in Iraq, with a dictator rumored to have WMDs powerful enough to end an entire civilization (85). As such, President Bush’s tactics ended up being counterproductive because of the resources used since Osama bin Laden was able to escape and capture Taliban. Terry Anderson’s book, Bush’s Wars, proves that a president is supposed to carefully evaluate both the short- and long-tern outcomes of any war, especially predicting its impact on economic growth.
On the other hand, in Imperial Life in the Emerald City, Chandrasekaran described how Saddam Hussein became sheltered from the reality of the situation in Iraq. The author also took note of the torment of the American troops and the fact that those who habited the Green Zone ignored the state of affairs (Chandrasekaran 107). Additionally, the author gave a skillful portrayal of how the selected American state officials had different plans for Iraq. They were expected to provide support to the military on an administrative basis (Chandrasekaran 80).
Both Chandrasekaran and Anderson effectively disclosed the unpleasant drives of the state individuals. Terry Anderson’s account can be used as a reliable source of scrutinizing some of the weaknesses of presidential decisions and why better results could be achieved if the leaders discussed the right measures to adopt. President’s Bush tactics regarding the war in Iraq has not being well researched because the peace is yet to be fully restored. The President, in his letters, evidently articulated that he did not desire to use force. He. Nevertheless, President Bush could have sought more options before he affianced Saddam Hussein in war. This move only continued the war and worsened the already poor state of Iraq.
Additionally, the American state officials deployed in Iraq exhibited haughtiness. Their lack of concern for other Americans only showed their disloyalty to the country. Thus, their inefficiency proved costly to America and further disabled Bush’s efforts to instigate peace.
Decades after the war in Iraq, the country is struggling to re-establish itself in the Middle East as one of the dominant powers. As such, television and radio stations broadcast issues sympathetic to those in Iran. More than half of the goods and infrastructure set up in Iraq are received from Iran (Cooper). Additionally, the Iraqi youths engaging in illicit drugs are likely to have gotten them from Iran. More so, the slow development in cities like Ramadi and Fallujah in Iraq has angered the citizens.
Moreover, reports from research show that if the US withdraws its military from Iraq and other neighboring countries, it will weaken their security. Terrorists will consequently easily attack these regions. Some of the groups like al-Qaeda and the Shababmay form treaties only to start war. On the positive side, since the 9/11 terrorist act in the United States, an attack of similar magnitude has not been experienced.
Over the years, the US military shifted its focus from Iraq to respond to threats made by Russia and China, an observation made by The New York Times (Cooper). Defence Secretary, Jim Mattis, stated that the Pentagon would provide a blueprint for forthcoming years on issues regarding the military. President Trump took note of the threats from what he described as hostile countries, such as Iran and North Korea, and concluded on the construction of a wall along the southern border with Mexico. Mattis further maintained that the old approach of making foreign policies would serve to protect the state better. As much as the military is directed to face a new direction by President Trump, the Pentagon says that it is essential to continue with the ongoing fights against terrorism but at the same time prepare for any potential wars (Cooper).
Effects of the war in Iraq are still witnessed decades after it ceased. The war exposed shortcomings in President Bush’s reign. His memoir intensified the allegations made by Terry Anderson and Rajiv Chandrasekaran in their books. Despite President Bush’s positive intentions, the outcomes warranted him the title of the one of the subjective leaders in history (Anderson 43). Years after the 9/11 attack, the US military has changed its strategy from confronting terrorists in countries like Iraq and Somalia to preparing for war with nations such as China and North Korea. This strategy proves to be beneficial since the state can qualify for any form of military attacks hence avoiding the post effects of war.
Anderson, Terry H. Bush’s Wars. Oxford University Press, 2011.
Bush, George Walker. Decision Points. Crown, 2010.
Chandrasekaran, Rajiv. Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone. Vintage, 2010.
Cooper, Helene. “Military Shifts Focus to Threats by Russia and China, Not Terrorism.” The New York Times, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/politics/military-china-russia-terrorism-focus.html. Accessed 2 July 2020.