More than thirteen years have passed since the United States invaded Iraq in March of 2003. This contentious decision has forever shifted U.S. foreign policy thus creating problems that will not be repaired easily, if at all. What grew into a full-blown war finally ended after Obama’s decision to bring troops back to the U.S., however the effects of the war are prominently evident in Iraq. The lack of any complete resolution for Iraq and its people has left many citizens of the United States, Iraq, and throughout the world wondering how and why this decision materialized (Gregg 1). Throughout the years since the invasion, the increase in information has further added to how complicated this foreign policy decision truly is. The aftermath of
…show more content…
Interestingly, with the case of the Iraq War the levels of analysis seem to overlap and it is more difficult to categorize each factor leading up to the invasion. An individual level of analysis begins with the idea that individuals do matter especially in the case of the Iraq War. Nineteenth century historian Thomas Carlyle’s The Great Man theory implies this idea to be true in that leaders do matter and have mattered throughout history. The Great Man Theory centers on two key beliefs, “the first being that great leaders are born possessing certain traits that enable them to rise and lead and the second being that great leaders can arise when the need for them is great (Psychological Foundations of Leadership 2). The September eleventh terrorist attacks proved Carlyle’s second belief and Americans feeling more vulnerable than ever before. Bush’s presidency was now a moment to rally citizens and guarantee damage to whoever attempted violence on the United States. September eleventh triggered revenge in the eyes and hearts of the United States. The newly drafted Bush Doctrine promotes going to war with the enemy or anyone who aids the enemy (McCartney 409). The doctrine was put into action with the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and soon after with the invasion of …show more content…
Political theorist Samuel P. Huntington describes this trend for the twenty first century as a “clash of civilizations.” Huntington describes two types of conflicts that will most likely arise: fault line-conflicts and core state conflicts. Fault line-conflicts are labeled as problems between ethnic or religious groups and core state conflicts, which instead are issues between major states (Goldstein 168). For centuries, two types of modern views have developed. While one focused on the individual and democracy, the other was a basis for the significance of a shared identity and dominant main power. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship suppressed ethnic, religious, or cultural groups in hopes of finding an exclusive Iraqi identity. Hussein’s ideology were that of the Ba’ath party and, “were based on the need for a radical and revolutionary transformation of Arab (not Muslim) society” (Voll 2). Huntington’s works spark a contrasting idea that a conflict of “Islam” against the “West” is incorrect. The United States government and citizens must learn that Iraq was different for a reason. Continuing to monitor terrorist activity and ominous leaders within states is important, but it is impractical to attempt to reshape states such as Iraq in order for their beliefs to align more closely with those of the
Interestingly, with the case of the Iraq War the levels of analysis seem to overlap and it is more difficult to categorize each factor leading up to the invasion. An individual level of analysis begins with the idea that individuals do matter especially in the case of the Iraq War. Nineteenth century historian Thomas Carlyle’s The Great Man theory implies this idea to be true in that leaders do matter and have mattered throughout history. The Great Man Theory centers on two key beliefs, “the first being that great leaders are born possessing certain traits that enable them to rise and lead and the second being that great leaders can arise when the need for them is great (Psychological Foundations of Leadership 2). The September eleventh terrorist attacks proved Carlyle’s second belief and Americans feeling more vulnerable than ever before. Bush’s presidency was now a moment to rally citizens and guarantee damage to whoever attempted violence on the United States. September eleventh triggered revenge in the eyes and hearts of the United States. The newly drafted Bush Doctrine promotes going to war with the enemy or anyone who aids the enemy (McCartney 409). The doctrine was put into action with the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and soon after with the invasion of …show more content…
Political theorist Samuel P. Huntington describes this trend for the twenty first century as a “clash of civilizations.” Huntington describes two types of conflicts that will most likely arise: fault line-conflicts and core state conflicts. Fault line-conflicts are labeled as problems between ethnic or religious groups and core state conflicts, which instead are issues between major states (Goldstein 168). For centuries, two types of modern views have developed. While one focused on the individual and democracy, the other was a basis for the significance of a shared identity and dominant main power. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship suppressed ethnic, religious, or cultural groups in hopes of finding an exclusive Iraqi identity. Hussein’s ideology were that of the Ba’ath party and, “were based on the need for a radical and revolutionary transformation of Arab (not Muslim) society” (Voll 2). Huntington’s works spark a contrasting idea that a conflict of “Islam” against the “West” is incorrect. The United States government and citizens must learn that Iraq was different for a reason. Continuing to monitor terrorist activity and ominous leaders within states is important, but it is impractical to attempt to reshape states such as Iraq in order for their beliefs to align more closely with those of the