Can intervention work? A case study of the Iraq War
Over the past two decades, intervention has been an important device in the Western foreign policy toolkit to solve conflicts outside their own territories. The word has been associated with both positive and negative connotations: on the one hand, humanitarian, democratic, noble; on the other hand, ambitious, expensive and dangerous. One of the most recent cases of intervention is the Iraq War from 2003 to 2011. In light of the fact that five years after the US army’s withdrawal, Iraq is still deep in troubles and conflicts, one might come to the conclusion that intervention cannot work. A closer look at the progress of the entire intervention, however, may suggest a different perspective …show more content…
Firstly, to remove the brutal president Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party from power and to build Iraq into a democratic state. Politicians at the time also expected the war to end soon. In this case, intervention was built on the Bush Doctrine, in the rationality that spreading democracy will decrease conflicts among countries. Bush also believed that, once succeeded, Iraq will serve as a model of democracy in the Arab world.
The first purpose was achieved within a short period of time, marked by the capture Saddam Hussein and later the large-scale de-Baathification. It was the second step that became knotty as time went by. To foster a new democracy, the US decided to take over to administer the country for an undefined period. Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, planned Seven Steps towards Iraqi Independence—1) to form the Iraqi Governing Council, 2) to name the constitution committee, 3) to appoint Iraqi ministers, 4) to draft a Constitution, 5) to ratify the Constitution, 6) to hold national elections, and 7) to form Iraqi …show more content…
If we look at how Ambassador Bremer’s Seven Steps were made true, we can tell how closely the intervention has brought us to the triumph. Each of the success, however, was distorted in a way that hampers itself.
The formation of the Iraqi Governing Council and other provincial councils provides an example of the possibility for different groups of people to cooperate. Through the proportional representation system—Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmen, Christians, altogether worked in a government apparatus, which had never been seen in the past. The structure of the system—a central council plus many provincial councils; the representation each adjusted according to the local demography—largely assembled the other modern countries. However, before long, the system collapsed, partially due to some strategic mistakes within the
Over the past two decades, intervention has been an important device in the Western foreign policy toolkit to solve conflicts outside their own territories. The word has been associated with both positive and negative connotations: on the one hand, humanitarian, democratic, noble; on the other hand, ambitious, expensive and dangerous. One of the most recent cases of intervention is the Iraq War from 2003 to 2011. In light of the fact that five years after the US army’s withdrawal, Iraq is still deep in troubles and conflicts, one might come to the conclusion that intervention cannot work. A closer look at the progress of the entire intervention, however, may suggest a different perspective …show more content…
Firstly, to remove the brutal president Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party from power and to build Iraq into a democratic state. Politicians at the time also expected the war to end soon. In this case, intervention was built on the Bush Doctrine, in the rationality that spreading democracy will decrease conflicts among countries. Bush also believed that, once succeeded, Iraq will serve as a model of democracy in the Arab world.
The first purpose was achieved within a short period of time, marked by the capture Saddam Hussein and later the large-scale de-Baathification. It was the second step that became knotty as time went by. To foster a new democracy, the US decided to take over to administer the country for an undefined period. Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, planned Seven Steps towards Iraqi Independence—1) to form the Iraqi Governing Council, 2) to name the constitution committee, 3) to appoint Iraqi ministers, 4) to draft a Constitution, 5) to ratify the Constitution, 6) to hold national elections, and 7) to form Iraqi …show more content…
If we look at how Ambassador Bremer’s Seven Steps were made true, we can tell how closely the intervention has brought us to the triumph. Each of the success, however, was distorted in a way that hampers itself.
The formation of the Iraqi Governing Council and other provincial councils provides an example of the possibility for different groups of people to cooperate. Through the proportional representation system—Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmen, Christians, altogether worked in a government apparatus, which had never been seen in the past. The structure of the system—a central council plus many provincial councils; the representation each adjusted according to the local demography—largely assembled the other modern countries. However, before long, the system collapsed, partially due to some strategic mistakes within the