Democratic Rhetoric vs. National Interest: The US' Invasion of Iraq in 2003

The United States is a country famous for its power, grand ambitions, and its role as the world’s police. After the Cold War, which took place from 1947 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the concept of the ‘balance of power’ was no longer relevant, since there’s only one hegemonic power with strong and widespread influence. Making the global power that once a bipolar one turns into a unipolarity. The United States at that time was under the leadership of George W. Bush. George W. Bush was the 43rd President of the United States and was the successor of Bill Clinton. Bush was elected President in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, defeating Al Gore from the Democratic Party. 

Under Bush’s leadership, U.S. foreign policy strongly emphasized hard power and unilateralism. George W. Bush led his own foreign policy revolution, rejecting isolationism and multilateralism, and embracing a unilateralist approach based on America's unrivalled power (Preston, Daalder, & Lindsay, 2003). Looking back at the United States under President George H. W. Bush during the 1991 Gulf War, the country became involved and led a coalition of 35 nations in the Gulf region because Saddam Hussein refused to withdraw from Kuwait. Oil was a key factor behind the invasion and a major reason for U.S. military involvement. According to the Miller Center, Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense, told Defense Secretary Dick Cheney that America's main strategic interest in the Persian Gulf was its oil. America's interests and its global influence, particularly in the Middle East, has led to the emergence of a unipolar world order (Gaan, 2003).

In 2003, the U.S. once again invaded Iraq. This decision was driven by the belief that Iraq was hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), associated with Al-Qaeda, and Bush’s perception of Saddam Hussein’s capabilities and intentions. All of these factors contributed to America's military actions in Iraq in both 1991 and 2003 (Visser & Siracusa, 2020). Furthermore, the moment when Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors to re-enter Iraq in 1997 contributed to Bush’s desire to depose the Iraqi leader.

When the United States invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power, many Iraqis felt relieved and believed they were finally free from his oppressive rule and a life of terror. To fill the status quo after Saddam’s regime was overthrown, America decided to build a transitional government, named the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). This administration was filled with Americans and Saddam Hussein’s former opponents who had previously been exiled. This drew a lot of controversy, as these individuals had little understanding of Iraq’s real condition and dynamics at that time, yet were now expected to lead the country. Even Iraqis who supported the ousting of Saddam Hussein had mixed feelings about the presence of foreign occupying forces (Shehata, 2005).

Without much delay, on May 16th, 2003, Order I was issued the De-Baathification policy. De-Baathification means banning the Baʿath Party from the government, removing all of its members from their positions, and preventing them from any future employment in the public sector. According to Britannica, the Baʿath Party is a Pan-Arab political organization that promotes the unification of all Arab countries into a single socialist state and Baʿath was also the party that backed Saddam Hussein back in the day and held many seats in the government. 

Then, a week later, on May 23rd, 2003, the CPA decided to impose another order, which was dissolving Iraq’s entities. As written in CPA Order Number 2, the CPA dissolved several ministries, security institutions, military bodies, and other organizations that were either affiliated with Saddam or operated under the former government. These policies added much chaos for the country, Iraq was now a state that was trapped in a Hobbesian nightmare. In the same study, Shehata also stated that Iraqis continue to experience a lack of security, and a large portion of the population places responsibility for this on the United States.

So, are all the casus belli stated by Bush true? First, we have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as the primary justification. At a GOP debate, Donald Trump alleged that the Bush administration had lied about the existence of WMDs. Additionally, according to NBC News, Bernie Sanders also believed that WMDs never existed. Back in 2003, he voted against the Iraq War and helped lead the opposition. According to Pew Research, a majority of Americans and U.S. military veterans, including those who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, believed the Iraq War was not worth fighting. Second, the alleged connection to Al-Qaeda was another justification. However, there was no evidence linking Iraq or Saddam Hussein to Al-Qaeda. In fact, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the issuance of CPA Order Number 2, which dismantled the Iraqi military, many illegal and foreign militant groups entered or emerged within the country. This marked the beginning of what would later become Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

Since the war began, this move has remained highly controversial. Returning to the core question, “Was the Iraq War driven by democratic rhetoric or by national interest?” The data and facts presented suggest that the actions taken by the United States were largely motivated by national interest. If the true intention had been to democratize Iraq, then the methods used to "heal" the country at the time would have been entirely different. A genuinely democratic approach would not have left Iraq trapped in what can only be described as a Hobbesian nightmare.