Americaa Role in Iraq Essay -- Argumentative Persuasive Essays

Americaa Role in Iraq As Afghan opposition groups and U.S. armed forces continue their successes in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, the American debate has quickly dark to the question of where the fight against terrorist act should go next. In numerous public statements, President Bush has talked ab pop a wide-ranging campaign against global terrorism. He has not committed to military operations against any other countries or terrorist organizations, but he has make it clear that the broader struggle against terrorism testament be a long-lasting effort that could include the use of military force in regions beyond Afghanistan. A strong case can be made that Iraqs leader, Saddam Hussein, is so threatening to his people, his neighbors, and U.S. interests that the United States should use military force, unilaterally if necessary, to overthrow him. Proponents of such an approach, however, often underestimate the costs and risks involved. Instead of mounting a U.S. attack o n Iraq as part of the current campaign, the Bush administration should take advantage of its success in Afghanistan to pressure allies and regional players to confiscate Saddams regime and to reinforce deterrence in an unambiguous way. A new Bush Doctrine should announce that capital of Iraqs support for terrorist networks, transfer of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups or individuals who target the United States, or the harboring of such terrorists go forth be considered an act of war and lead immediately to an American military intervention to overthrow the regime.Targeting Iraq in that location are many potential targets for a possible post-Afghanistan phase of the warAbu Sayyaf guerrilla bases in the Philippines, for example, as well as terrorist headquarters and training camps in Somalia, Syria, and Lebanon. But none is to a greater extent consequential or more prominent in the current policy debate than Saddam Husseins regime in Iraq. many outside analysts and (more privately) some senior Bush administration officials are already making the case that the next phase in the war on terrorism should be an effort to overthrow the Iraqi regimeif necessary, with U.S. military force. On November 26, President Bush himself appeared to raise the ante on the Iraq debate, stating that Saddam would find out what was in store for him if he failed to heed international demands to allow inspector... ...ime that would crack down on Iraqi smuggling, focus sanctions more specifically on the Baghdad leadership and weapons of mass destruction capabilities, and make civilian goods available for easier import into Iraq. Meaningful searches for Iraqs WMD capabilities would also be desirable, but only if they would be more effective than those of the late 1990s. Americas allies and the regional powers need to understand that if Iraq cannot be contained with sanctions and stronger nonproliferation efforts, Washington may ultimately have to use force to strive th at goal.The U.S. administration should make it clear to the rest of the world that it cares a lot more about the well-being and future of the Iraqi population than does Saddam Hussein, and it should exact out a vision of American support for a future Iraq under a different regime. Reinforced deterrence, more vigilant nonproliferation efforts, and smarter sanctions will not make the Persian Gulf region risk-free or immediately free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship. But they will serve the core goal of helping to prevent future terrorist actions like those of September 11 at a reasonable military and strategic cost.