how did the 1st iraq war help in unilateralism
Answers
Answer:
Iraq War profiteers
One of the top profiteers from the Iraq War was oil field services corporation, Halliburton. Halliburton gained $39.5 billion in "federal contracts related to the Iraq war". Many individuals have asserted that there were profit motives for the Bush-Cheney administration to invade Iraq in 2003.
Answer:
“Operation Iraqi Freedom” is just one example of the United State’s trend toward unilateral force. Traditionally, “defense against an aggression under way, recovery of something stolen, or punishment for evil” are the three “just cause” reasons for going to war (Weigel). The United States has tried to claim these as reasons for aggression against Iraq, but the proof is lacking. For instance, Bush’s most compelling argument for war was that “Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological arms – weapons of mass destruction” (Duffy). Washington used CIA intelligence before the war to prove weapons building sites existed. However, Lieutenant General James T. Conway remarked that “virtually every ammunition supply point between Kuwait and Baghdad” has been checked, and no weapons have been found (Weigel). Bush, on the other hand, claimed that the U.S. found two trailers with laboratory equipment but without any pathogens inside, nevertheless “tantamount to a discovery of weapons” (Milbank). He asserts that they will find more as time goes by – but more weapons or more abandoned laboratories? In retrospect, the supposed threat from the existence of weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration estimated in January at approximately 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents” (Milbank), “appears to have been a ruse” (Zunes)!
Washington also tried to link Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda. Even after gathering thousands of Iraqi documents and questioning many Iraqi officials on the issue, it appears that there was no direct Iraqi support of terrorist organizations for more than a decade (Zunes). In fact, fundamentalist terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda despise Hussein for the relatively secularized and westernized, non-fundamentalist Iraqi culture he has created (McLain). Some even speculate that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were encouraging the pending U.S. attack (Paul, Violating the Constitution).
Thus, the pre-empted strike by the U.S. was not a defense against an aggression, a recovery of something stolen or a punishment for evil. Iraq apparently possessed no weapons of mass destruction. Even if weapons had been a legitimate concern, why was the Bush administration unable to convince even its closest allies in Europe that this was the real reason for going to war (U.S. Unilateralism)? Since Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States, and maybe Europe realized this, it is quite likely that the U.S. had a hidden agenda (U.S. Unilateralism). Could this hidden agenda include setting an example for nearby countries (i.e., Syria and Iran), or using Iraq “as a launching pad for changing the status quo in the Middle East” (Speigel)?
Not only did the United States attack Iraq without clear justification, it went to war without the consent of the United Nations. The United Nations was established to resolve conflict between nations in a peaceful manner, and to find alternatives to war. Only under extreme and warranted circumstances is war an acceptable measure. Even then, “it should be a coordinated undertaking authorized by Congress and sanctioned by the member states of the United Nations, not preemptive strike initiated by the President of the United States” (Nyden). The U.S. did not have a declaration of war from Congress or majority consent from the U.N.