Provide a historical perspective of the policy from assignment one.
Describe the official and unofficial actors of the policy from assignment two.
Present both of the positions of the policy from assignment three.
Persuade the audience that the position you have chosen is worthy of the policy being implemented.
Historical perspective of the policy
In 2001, the attacks of 9/11 led the anti-terrorism war on Afghanistan. Iraq had not been implicated in the attacks of 9/11. But the 43rd US president said that his decision to invade the country and seek to replace its Baathist regime with a democracy was based on several considerations that grew out of that attack.
In January 29, 2002, State of the Union address, Bush made it clear that he would not allow Saddam to acquire a massed huge caches of biological and chemical weapons—and was trying to develop nuclear devices, and included Iraq in a list of nations that he termed “an axis of evil.” Bush’s decision to invade Iraq became by far the most controversial of his administration, and costly in numerous ways.
In October 2002, he presented Congress with a resolution authorizing him to invade Iraq.
On October 11, the measure passed both Houses and Senates with broad bi-partisan support.
On November 8, 2002, Bush secured a 15-0 vote in the U.N. Security Council authorizing the return of weapons inspectors and promising “serious consequences” if Iraq did not cooperate. The clock was ticking.
On March 17, Bush made a nationally televised speech giving Saddam 48 hours to give up power or face an invasion. Two nights later, the war began.
In the midst of his March 19, 2003, speech informing Americans that the invasion had been launched, Bush paused to speak directly to the U.S. armed forces. It was then 4 a.m. in Baghdad. The rationale for war, he told the troops, was based on human rights.
The official and unofficial actors of the policy
Position in favor of the policy 1 2
9/11 tragedy called the name of a policy eliminating regimes, terrorism, and especially WMD.
Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, en-ergized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons (2002 National Intelligence Estimate); most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
It is expected to be catastrophic if the nuclear Iraq army led by Saddam shake hand with Al-Qaeda.
The imminent threat was that Iraq would soon acquire a significant WMD (especially nuclear) capability.
The US administration should chose to eliminate this threat before it became an imminent threat of use.
Position against the policy 2
Al-Qaeda, not Iraq, that formed the central suspection in the war against terrorism.
Iraq has become the most powerful magnet for Islamic terrorists.
In stead of curbing terrorism, the war on Iraq is likely to fan the flames of terrorism.
The US needs money for its own infrastructure and to train unemployed in this nation, it is obiviously wrong to spend this money in Iraq.
The so-called Vietnam syndrome that exercised a restraining influence could be haunted Americans again.
Position is worthy of the policy being implemented
The rest of the world recognizes that the occupation of Iraq only inflames terrorism, but Americans have been slow to come to this realization due to a lack of media criticism.
Bush’s Iraq invasion has already undermined world safety. After being threatened by Bush, Iran renewed up its atomic production and North Korea, according to CIA estimates, now has enough nuclear fuel to build six or more atomic bombs, all created during the Bush presidency.
The only solution to Iraq is one that the Bush Administration refuses to concede and one that another administration could implement. The U.S. must withdraw from Iraq and approach the problem of terrorism on many fronts. Only this strategy offers the greatest chance of containing-and ultimately reducing- terrorism.
1. Richard B. Cheney (October 17, 2003). Meeting the Challenge of the War on Terrorism. The Heritage Foundation.
2. Charles D. Lutes. Combating WMD Threats – Chapter Three, Strategic Challenges. The Institute for National Strategic studies. National Defense university
3. Ed Kent (2008, February 15). Two Interest Group – War on Iraq. Blogger News Network. Retrieved November 18, 2012, from http://www.bloggernews.net/113807
4. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (2006, March 23). The Israel Lobby. London Review of Books. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby
5. The 25 Most Vicious Iraq War Profiteers (n.a.). Retrieved November 16, 2012 from http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/