The Republic of Iraq sits on the historic land of the "Cradle of Civilization", which was home to the Sumerian, Acadian, Babylonian, Assyrian and many other cultures. Modern Iraq became a British mandate after the end of World War I and gained independence from British control in 1932. Saddam Hussein's absolute and particularly bloody rule started in July 1979. His and his Baath Party power ended after the 2003 March occupation of Iraq, led by American and British military forces. In 2004 the US-managed Coalition Provisional Authority turned over sovereignty to an Iraqi Interim Government. Under the new constitution, which includes basic freedoms like freedom of religion, speech, and assembly, Iraq would elect a permanent government in December 2005.
Iraq's economy is dominated by the oil sector. It has traditionally provided about 95% of foreign exchange earnings. To ease the economic recession and to improve conditions for the average Iraqi citizen after the Gulf War in 1996 the United Nations implemented the oil-for-food program.
Seventy-five percent of Iraq's population speaks Arabic; the other major ethnic groups are the Kurds (15-20%), Assyrians (4%), and Turcoman (3%) that live mostly in the north and north-east of the country. The Assyrians, Kurds, and Turkomans differ from Arabs in culture, history, clothing, and language. Other distinct groups are Persians, Lurs, and Armenians and Jews.
About Saddam Hussein
28 April, 1937 Born in Al-Awja, Iraq
1956 Joined the Baath Party
1958 Spends six months in prison arrested for killing his brother-in-law
1959 Was a part of a Baath assassination team which had attempted to
assassinate Prime Minister Abdel-Karim Kassem. Saddam was shot in the leg and was forced to escape to Syria
1963 Returned to Iraq after Ramadan Revolution. He was in prison until 1967.
1968 Participated in a coup in which overthrew the Iraqi government. Saddam
was placed in charge of internal security.
1969 Was elected for Vice-chairman of the Revolution Command Council
1979 President of Iraq
1990 After a dispute about oil, ordered an invasion of Kuwait
2003 With the government of Iraq overthrown, and the Saddam leading Iraqi
Resistance, he is caught in Adwar
The Iraqi war has been broken out in a controversial political atmosphere. The leaders of the developed countries had different opinions how to handle the potential threat of Saddam Hussein's regime.
The world burst into two parties. The allies of the USA are convinced that the preventive attack saved their countries from serious consequences. Those, who were against the war, may see that the expectations of failure are proving true.
In our essay we would like to analyze the decision making process and negotiation tactics of those countries which participated and of those who rejected to participate in the second Iraqi conflict.
Considering the arguments supporting and against the Iraqi war
Decision making of the participating countries
Problem solving techniques
Limitation of the rational process
For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has violated and breeched the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by such as continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles, brutalizing the Iraqi people, also committing gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity, supporting international terrorism, refusing to release or account for prisoners and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era, refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti property, and infringing the UN's economic sanctions.
Chemical, biological, nuclear and mass destruction weapons
Saddam Hussein killed thousands of Iraqi Kurdish people in the late 1980s by chemical weapons attack. His military forces used mustard gas and nerve agents delivered by bombs and rockets.
First the situation for the US was like the Bull-in-chine-shop, because the US had not got much information about how to threaten Iraq.
The real danger was that there were signs of continuous chemical, biological and nuclear weapon- production. Such as, the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) experts concluded that Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and about 550 shells filled with mustard agent.
Another alarming sign was that Iraq sought to buy chemical weapons agents, production equipments and materials to make an atomic bomb. They still had the technical expertise and the infrastructure needed to build nuclear weapons. The most likely targets would be US troops, Saudi Arabia, or Israel. It was also suspicious that Saddam Hussein repeatedly met with his nuclear scientists over the past two years, signaling his continued interest in developing a nuclear program. The major benefits of a war are reckoned to be disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and removing a leadership that is unrelentingly hostile to the United States.
So the situation was a typical example of game theory with uncertainty and sequential timing.
Human rights abuses
Saddam Hussein also violated the UN resolution by not finishing his repression of the Iraqi people, refusing visits by human rights monitors and international humanitarian organizations to help those in need of assistance.
There were terrible violence against women and children, horrific torture and execution of innocent Iraqis. Saddam violated the basic human rights of the Iraqi people. Women were raped in custody. The jailers videotaped the rape of suspected oppositionists' female relatives to ensure their future cooperation. Iraqi security services systematically tortured prisoners with electric shocks, beating, pulling out of fingernails, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, rape, breaking of limbs, denial of food and water, extremely small compartments, and threats to harm relatives. Prisoners were held without charge for decades, and many of them were used as experimental subjects for chemical and biological weapons. Tongue amputation was a frequent punishment for criticizing Saddam Hussein or his family.
UN Human Rights Special report in 1998 stated that Iraq had executed at least 1,500 people during the previous year for political reasons. They committed also ethnical cleansing against Kurds, Turks and other non Arab citizens.
The so called â€žSaddam Cubs" were for military weapons-training camps for children between 10 and 15 years of age. The trainings were 14 hours each day for 3 weeks. If the family refused to enroll their children in the courses they lost their food ration cards. Food and medicine were stockpiled in warehouses or given for the personal use of some government officials instead of given to the public, and also to children.
The US followed value based decision making. Their main ethical principle was utilitarianism; they decided to do whatever provides the greatest good for the greatest number. With Saddam's removal the majority of both the Iraqi citizens and the whole world's population benefited.
The freedom of speech, press, information, religion, assembly, association, expression and even thoughts did not exist in Iraq according to the UN General Assembly. All sources of information was controlled, more than 500 journalists and other opinion leaders were killed in the past decade. Foreign journalists were always accompanied by ministry officers, who restricted their movements and make it impossible for them to interact freely with citizens. Saddam's supporters owned all print and broadcast media, and used them for propaganda. So they generally did not broadcast opponent domestic or foreign views. Satellite dishes, modems, and fax machines were banned. And even in Internet cafes only government permitted web sites were accessible.
Support for international terrorism
UNSCR 687 prohibited Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. But still several terrorist groups were sheltered and received financial aid, training and logistical assistance by the Iraqi government. Such as the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) which is known for several attacks against Israel. Saddam also protected the Abu Nidal Organization that is an international terrorist organization which carried out terrorist attacks in the United States and several other Western countries. In April 2002 Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Former Iraqi military officers had described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs received training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
Saddam has been a rather unpredictable man. He had already used chemical weapons during the war against Iran. His aims against the western culture were clear. So a preventive war seemed to be an enactive stress managing solution, where the stressors would have been eliminated. We can also imagine how different would have been the history if the French had carried out a preventive war against Hitler's Germany in 1935-36? So many lives would have been saved.
The world's and the US's mental model contains also this historical experience. After observing the history the US concluded that war against Iraq is necessary. Due to that all countries have different ladders of inference and angles of inference not everybody supported or agreed the US plans.
UN Oil-for-Food Program
After the Gulf War and the liberation of Kuwait the Iraqi people faced a humanitarian catastrophe, with epidemic and famine. To decrease the problem and prevent a potential catastrophe in Iraq the United States initiated and the UN administered the Oil-for-Food Program. The program was just initiated in 1996 when Iraq finally started to cooperate with it. The limit on the amount of oil that could be exported was steadily expanded and finally all goods could be purchased and imported except those that the list of dual-use items contained which could have military or weapons of mass destruction applications. The Oil-for-Food was a success, caloric intake doubled, diseases declined significantly among the Iraqi population, transportation, agriculture, and electricity sectors were also rehabilitated.
This situation is a 3D game theory dilemma with three main participants, the US, Saddam and the Iraqi people (each one on each axle). Denying cooperation with the Program for the US was not really logical. It was the US who came out with the idea, otherwise they needed the oil, wanted to maintain a life without terrorist attacks and also improve the Iraqi people's situation. Iraqi people had not got the choice to choose, but the cooperation with the Program was in their favour. For Saddam first cooperation was unacceptable then seemingly cooperation with secret infringements of the Oil-for-Food Program seemed to be more profitable.
But more could have been achieved if Saddam Hussein had fully cooperated with the UN in the Oil-for-Food Program and in disarmament. The Iraqi regime continued to divert dual-use items, for example they diverted UN approved trucks from humanitarian relief purposes to military purposes. Saddam Hussein illegally imported hundreds of millions of dollars in goods in and exported hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil each day by violating the UN's Oil-for-Food program.
The problem was that it deprived the Iraqi people of billions of dollars in food, medicine, and other humanitarian assistance that would have been provided if the regime had exported the oil under the UN Oil-for-Food program. Instead, Saddam Hussein used these billions to fund his WMD programs, pay off his security apparatus, and supplied himself and his supporters with luxury items and other goods. Saddam Hussein spent smuggled oil wealth on his palaces and inner circle instead of on the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. He used water pumps, piping, and other supplies that could have been used to repair urban sewer and water systems in order to construct moats and canals at his palaces.
Taking into consideration these reason for war we can see different values behind the decision making process. The western culture people's personal and undeniable right for safety and life without being target points of terrorists. General ideas associated with people such as the freedom of speech, press, information, religion, assembly, association, expression and thoughts. And of course we should not forget the values of business organizations such as more demand, more profit and growth, also the sorely needed oil.
After having talked about the pro arguments to invade Iraq, we are going to talk about the opposition view of this invasion.
The violation of the international law
"If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what America is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms." / Nelson Mandela/
Some have said that the US and other coalition governments' invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country which breached international law. Actually, Iraq did not invade any countries. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter:
"All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression."
For the use of force other than in self defense, it is absolute without the positive sanction of the Security Council under Article 42. Resolution 1441 was not intended by China, Russia and France to authorize war. Both Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General of the United Nations, and former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well as several nations, say that the attack violated international law as a war of aggression since it lacked the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize military force, and was not an act of defense, and so violated the UN charter. Though many nations opposed the war, no foreign government openly supported Saddam Hussein, and none volunteered any assistance to the Iraqi side.
Lack of evidence- weapon of massive destruction
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution made by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (First war in Iraq-1991) notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, of all aspects of its programmes to develop WMD and ballistic missiles". One of the first arguments for the USA was the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
But, the U.S. Iraq Survey Group Final Report concluded in its September 30, 2004 report that, "ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation-including detainee interviews and document exploitation-leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability." The U.S. officially abandoned its search for WMDs in Iraq on January 12, 2005. To this date, WMDs have not been found in Iraq.
Many critics of the American War on Terror, including the UK's foreign intelligence services, did not believe that American actions would help to end terror, and believed that they would actually increase the ranks and capabilities of terrorist groups; some believed that during the war and immediate post-war period there would be a greatly increased risk that WMD would fall into the wrong hands (including Al-Qaida).
Change the Iraq regime as a reason to enter the war?
The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith on 7 March 2003 on the legality of the war. In the document, Lord Goldsmith weighs the different arguments on whether military action against Iraq would be legal without a second UN Resolution. Saying that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action," it clearly stated that invasion for the purpose of regime change was illegal.
As everyone knows now, and knew perfectly well then, the whole point of the invasion of Iraq was regime change. President Bush said so with Tony Blair standing by his side. At the joint press conference the two leaders gave at George Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 6, 2002, he helpfully summed up the purpose of the military action against Iraq in a single sentence: "We support regime change." For George Bush, no further elaboration was necessary.
The religious consequences
The Vatican also came out against war in Iraq. Archbishop Renato Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters that war against Iraq was a "preventative" war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a just war.
According to French President Jacques Chirac, 'to a certain extent Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing. But it also provoked reactions, such as the mobilization in a number of countries, of men and women of Islam, which has made the world more dangerous.'
It is interesting to observe that in the new Iraq, where now the basic freedoms exist, how people cope with the novelty and the new situation. There are arguments stating that Iraqi women were happier before the western civilization entered their country. And the US is not a liberating but an invading country.
Perhaps the most commonly heard criticism, at least outside of the U.S., was that the Bush Administration's reason for going to war with Saddam was to gain control over Iraqi natural resources (i.e. petroleum). Though few doubt that nuclear and WMD proliferation is a serious threat to stability and well-being, many felt that a war in Iraq would not aid in eliminating this threat and that the real reason was to secure control over the Iraqi oil fields (at a time when arguably links with Saudi Arabia were at risk). "No blood for oil" was a popular protest cry prior to the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
United Nations Security Council
United National Security Council and its resolutions
The United Nations Security Council is the most powerful organ of the United Nations. It is charged with maintaining peace and security between nations. While other organs of the UN only make recommendations to member governments, the Security Council has the power to make decisions which member governments must carry out under the United Nations Charter. The decisions of the Council are known as UN Security Council Resolutions.
A United Nations Security Council Resolution is voted on by the fifteen members of the UN Security Council. It is passed if nine or more members vote for the resolution, and it is not vetoed by any of the five permanent members: People's Republic of China (until 1971 the Republic of China), France, Russian Federation (until 1991 the Soviet Union), United Kingdom, and United States.
Implication of the Security Council in the Iraq war
Prior to 2002, the UN Security Council had passed sixteen resolutions on Iraq. November 8th, 2002, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 on Iraq unanimously. This resolution was a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations that had been set out in several previous resolutions. Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance.
In early December, 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The UN and the US said that this failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents.
Hans Blix (weapon inspector) presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and the report was taken broadly negatively. France, Germany and other countries called for more time and resources for the inspections. The March 7 report was again seen as broadly positive, but Blix noted that disarmament and the verification of it would take months, rather than weeks or days.
By mid-March, Resolution 1441 had become crucial in the Iraq disarmament crisis. Under furious debate was whether a further Security Council resolution (the so-called "second resolution") was necessary to authorize war, or whether 1441 and preceding resolutions sufficed to legitimize military enforcement of the UN's disarmament aims. UK prime minister Tony Blair had for several weeks been under significant domestic pressure to obtain the "second resolution", and he led efforts for a unanimous resolution authorizing force. Of the permanent, veto-holding members of the Security Council, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China wished the inspection period to be extended, and for no military action to go ahead without a further UN resolution. On the other hand, the USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain. On March 10, French president Jacques Chirac declared that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.
However, none have them called for the security council to consider sanctions against the United States or the other nations involved, both because of an effort to restore warmer relationships with the US, and because the attempt would be futile since the US has a veto in the Security Council. Countries like France and Russia were in a certain way bluffing. Actually, the veto has never been used before. They used this to put pressure on the coallition and touch the public opinion which played an important role.
At the Azores conference of March 16, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Spanish prime minister José María Aznar announced the imminent deadline of March 17 for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". This was seen as meaning war would almost certainly start very soon after that date. On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK foreign secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq.
Negotiations tactics used by USA to convince UN members
After this brief review of history, let's have a look at the different negotiation strategies used by the USA during the different conferences to make countries agree on the Iraq invasion. The main purpose of their negotiation was to make opponents (other disagreeing members: France, Germany etc.) change their opinion, it's to say make them agree on the fact that it is necessary to involve the military forces of the UN.
As the USA really wanted to invade Iraq for many reasons mentioned above, they pretended that their was no doubt about the fact that Iraq was in possession of mass destruction weapons. Even with the report made by an official inspector (Hans Blix) stipulating that more time was needed, Georges W. Bush confirmed that Iraq was a danger for Western countries. He bluffed affirming that he was sure they would attack "us" first and so that "we" have to make the first step.
George W. Bush addressed the General Assembly
on September 12, 2002
Give an ultimatum
The resolution 1441 can be seen as an ultimatum to Iraq but as we've seen, they responded favorably to that resolution within 3 days. USA gave Iraq another ultimatum they couldn't request which was to surrender all the weapons they finally didn't have.
Promote positive benefits for opponents
The president of the USA tried to argue and describe why and what the benefits for all countries to participate in that conflict. These benefits have already been mentioned in the pros of the war.
Make opponent appear unreasonable
They tried to persuade other countries saying that they would be responsible if Iraq decided to attack them with their mass destruction weapons.
The USA had to negotiate for a long time with the Un Security Council before taking the decision against the agreement of Kofi Annan. Indeed, the resolution was made by the beginning of November 2002 and the invasion started on March 2003.
USA also used control tactics by controlling the agenda. They tried to impose the dates and the calendar of the ultimatum and the resolution. They decided when the report of Hans Blix should be handled and when were the next deadlines.
To get the confirmation of the UN for the Iraq invasion they finally used pressure tactics such as threats and especially coalition (with Spain and UK).
How did governments decide that they want to take part in the war?
On 11th September America was attacked by a foreign force. Although, due to the NATO pact every member country had to help USA to defend itself against the terrorism, some countries didn't want to have another war considering the doubtful situation in Afghanistan. They decided that they would not send any soldiers to Iraq. But how should they tell the American government without displease them? What were the reasons why some countries supported the USA and others did not?
I. The pressure of German people
According to an evaluation made by the German government in 2002, the majority of population was strict against a war in Iraq. For them there wasn't any reason to send soldiers to a country which is so far away. The chancellor, Gerhardt Schroeder didn't want to make a decision which wasn't in favour with the public opinion because he wanted to have another term of office. He had a meeting with the French president, Mr. Chirac where they discussed the "Iraq case". Before the decision came to the UN security office, Schroeder declared that Germany wouldn't take part in the war, for any conditions. France supported this decision and they also took a stand on anti-war politics.
The American government wasn't happy about the statements of the two leaders. The US could not understand the motives, so they inquired: "How can you already make a decision before you listened to our reasons?" After that the French president made a step backward and that they would not make their final decision before the presentation of Collin Powell at the UN security office.
Chancellor Schroeder was not able to change his mind otherwise he would lose the confidence of the people and his reputation.
II. Russians Prisoner Dilemma
Russia also had the intention to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but the country was not prepared for a desert war and they struggled with financial problems. They already had serious conflicts with Tschetschenia. They knew that the decision of America does not depend on them. Putin knew if America attacked Iraq they would have made it with or without Russia. Russia finally decided not to participate in the war.
The Kremlin made its decision concerning to the Prisoner Dilemma: they would have the benefits of a democratic Iraq without having the disadvantages of a war. And even if America had decided not to occupy Iraq they would have been still in the Nash equilibrium. If Russia did not co-operate with the US government, without taking into consideration what the others would do, they would always gain the biggest advantage. Attack Iraq on their own could have been a great disadvantage for them.
III. Pressure from the USA
America was looking for countries that were willing to support the war in Iraq. So they tried to put some political pressure on them. Mr. Bush made the statement: â€žWith us or against us." The countries who invaded Iraq were with them, the others against them. With this statement, Bush managed that there was no status in-between; every county must take a stand on a side. Some countries felt related with USA but they did not want to enter into an (endless?) war in Iraq but if they wanted to keep good relations with America they were had to send some soldiers. Especially countries like Canada or Mexico that actually were against the war, suffered from a high pressure, because of the high dependence on US trade. If America had decreased the trade with one of these countries, they might have had an export crash, which means they would have had serious economic problems. These countries did not wanted to be isolated from USA, which was the main reason, why they sent soldiers to Iraq.
IV. The advantage of Poland
Poland was controlled by the Russians for 40 years. Now as a democratic country they are members in NATO and the EU. Poland wanted to loosen its relations with Russia and have stronger relations with the western countries. Their most important power among western countries is America that is why they wanted to increase the bilateral co-operation, to benefit from the political and economic results. Thus Poland have sent a big number of soldiers to Iraq and hoped that America would not forget their support.
V. Old friendship
Since the colonisation era the United Kingdom have had a close friendship with the USA. In international policy they often co-operated. There are many examples to prove that the United Kingdom always had benefits from this relation. If America had not gone to Iraq, the United Kingdom would never invaded Iraq by its own. On the other side, America would not have the political power to invade Iraq, even if its closest ally had not supported them.
How did USA decide that they want to invade Iraq?
In 2003 the US Army invaded together with the â€žCoalitions of the Willing" a multilateral force, Iraq. The operation â€žEnduring Freedom" should bring democracy and with it peace to Iraq. Now two years after the occupation there is more violence than before. Many people forgot why America occupied Iraq. Here are some reasons why they made this decision.
I. Mass destruction weapons
The USA had a serious worry about Iraqi mass destruction weapons. At the UN Security Round, Collin Powell told in his presentation that over 1000 tons of Anthrax was missing in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein already tried to buy fissionable material. As soon as Hussein has the power bomb nobody is able to control him any more. There is a first mover advantage. If the USA react first and occupy Iraq, Saddam will not be able to build the nuclear power bomb any more. If Saddam Hussein first builds the nuclear bomb, the USA would not or only under very high risk would be able to invade Iraq and would have much more losses.
Thus the USA only saw one chance: to destroy Saddam's regime as long as they were able to.
II. The Oil
Iraq has immense oil resources; it possesses 10% of the world's proven oil reserves.
"Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq's true resource potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. Deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources, but have not been explored."
Most of the people think that the USA invaded Iraq to make business with their oil. But this import business only made losses.
Iraq planned to use its influence on the OPEC countries to change the currency rate in which oil is valued from Dollar to Euro. The USA would lose a major income source, which makes -unless their high trade balance deficit - them one of the richest countries in the world.
Every country in the world that needs oil has to pay in Dollar. Thus the USA is able to print new Dollar notes without any risk of a high inflation or devaluation of the currency.
This would change immediately as soon as the oil producing countries would sell oil in Euro. The Dollar would be devalued by 40%. Foreigner would not invest into American companies anymore. The bank system would crash down. That would mean the break down of the world economy.
III. Dynamic of Mobilization
The main reason for the growing time pressure is that they have already pressed ahead with the troop deployment. Is it possible for George W. Bush to call back aircraft carriers, bomb wings and special troops, without losing his reputation?
The USA had sent the troops earlier to the Golf than they have actually made their official decision. They wanted to be able to invent very fast, as soon as the decision about the war would be made. But then the troops were already there so they were waiting for the start of the mission. Since USA has already done the first step, they could hardly turn back.
Weeks before the war had started, there were already 180.000 soldiers in the region. Washington was concerned about the increasing costs and the decreasing morality of the troops with every day of delay. And with every day of delay the anti-USA demonstrations became more frequent. It seems that a countdown had started which could not been stopped.
IV. Revenge for the father
The personal background may also play a role in the US President's decision, although he disputed it. However, many conservative military experts think, that Bush Senior had made a mistake, because he did not overthrow Saddam, when he had the chance, in 1991.
On the other hand, Saddam tried to kill Bush Senior in Kuwait 1993. George W. cannot forget this fact. He reached the limits of a rational problem solving while mixing personal feelings with politics. He should not put his self interests over the interests of his country.
Such decisions whether a country should participate in a war can be definitely considered as non programmed decisions. Indeed, in the case of political conflict, the decisions that have to be made are about a highly novel problem for which there is no pre-specified way of action. As for organization, the governments which represent the top managers of the countries are taking this decision regarding the direction they want to give to their country. For example France, wanted to be a pacifist country that's how they based their decision making process: regarding the orientation they want to give to the country.
In this situation all countries made their opinion upon a traditional way of handling non programmed decisions that based upon judgment and intuition. Effectively, countries decided to participate or not in the war regarding their own beliefs and values.
As this was a particularly consequent decision, the government should take alone the responsibility of such a verdict, that's why none of the countries implicated made their mind after a referendum. That's why that was a top-down decision making process where the power of the decision was in the hands only of the different governments.
The decision-making process was also based upon the Rational-Economic model. Indeed, we cannot say that it was only rational since some countries had to consider all the consequences that this war would economically make on the country. Taking again the example of France, they guessed before their final decision that their position would lead to a boycott of French products by USA such as camembert and Bordeaux wine.
Cultural factors also might have influenced countries for their decisions. Based upon the Hofstede cultural dimensions, people behave and so decide differently regarding the fact that they are more individualist, masculine, or idealist.
Limitations of the rational process
In the middle of year 2002, the main economies of the world, the USA, Europe, Japan, had been in a firm process of recession, where the horizon was not seen some with conditions that assured a fast recovery. Rather the affirmation of this tendency, in which the totality of the periphery was also grouped, ended at the opening of a depressive historical period, of the extension that nobody was able to define.
It was in this atmosphere that found a fast one takes off a strategic exposition. The North American administration came back maturing from a pair of years by breaking the depressive cycle by means of the resource of the war. To that it was adding the pretexts and objectives that agreed, whenever they were straightened to reinforce world-wide the economic hegemony of the great power.
In this scheme one assumed
Putting the budget reinforced of the country, even in the middle of great indebtedness, in the pockets of the complex industrialist-military man, that immediately are supported with great investments and liberalities-400 billion for military expenses in 2004 and 80 extra billion for the conquest of Iraq.
Releasing taxes to corporative gains in order to canalize them in form of direct investments in the same sense.
Putting objective to reach the control of the energy of the planet, occupying the oil zones and distributing its production between the North American corporations, fitting the prices to the development of the country, and limiting the quotas blocks "contenders".
The armament growth and the military triumphs would attract the hegemony of the American capital global level, and its triumph over the powers of Europe and Asia, defining the course of history in century XXI.
The energy disposition - and from cheap workforce by a long time, it would make the North American industry competitive again, and it would allow to get out from the depressive period.
It is important to remember that before the USA entered in the war of Iraq, the prices of petroleum had oscillated between the $22 and the $28 by barrel.
The calculations of the cost of the war would have been around 80 000 million dollars if it had lasted weeks, and around 200 000 million if it had lasted pair of months, extending to more requirements by hundreds of thousands of million dollars, if the things were complicated.
As well, the stock-market, which was fallen below the 8000 points, responded alleviated before this delivery, returned again to the 8200.
In Iraq, except for the oil stations, the entire infrastructure was destroyed, and these same stations do not work without electricity. The zone is suffering of serious economic problems. Millions have to live in poverty in refugee camps.
However this created a controversial situation from the point of view of the possible "businesses of reconstruction", in which many American and European companies had put their hopes.
It can be hardly stated that the either the world economy or the American economy was recovered by the Iraqi war. More problems have been arisen and those that already had existed, was deepened.
The big support of the American people towards George W. Bush supposed a reinforcement of his first mandate, including his foreign policy. Now, the surveys show that the majority of the Americans think that the war was unnecessary and weakened the American relations with some of the European allies.
It is the reality of the international terrorism that may determine the arguments of the US President, the establishment of numerous mechanisms and procedures that guarantee a certain degree of safety of the society. In this line, first the USA and then EU member states came out with a strategy against the terrorism.
From 9.11., 2001 the fight against the terrorism has already gone through several stages from the defeat of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan up to the attempts of Casablanca, Bali, Istanbul or Madrid, and the break up of several terrorist cells in Europe.
The reason, that used to tackle the war against Iraq, was the possession of massive destruction weapon. Nevertheless, after almost two years of investigations, the military American authorities admitted that they were wrong.
The problem of the proliferation of these weapons is one of the most important assignments actually, but the way it was handled in the case of Iraq does not seem to be adapted to confront it. While the world attention turned towards Iraq, countries as North Korea, India or Pakistan have reaffirmed their nuclear programs, and Iran seems to continue it as well.
New challenges and uncertainties we face in safety in XXI. century, supposed the need to base the defense of the different countries on their services of intelligence. Nevertheless, the attempts of New York, Casablanca or Madrid have demonstrated the inefficiency of the prevention of these attacks that reached for the first time societies that were not feeling threatened till that time. At the moment of justifying the assault to Iraq, the role of the service of intelligence raises a series of questions on their reliability and on their relations with the political power, which has to be solved if they do not want to stay in interdiction.
The war of Iraq has had consequences in all the orders, mostly on international scene. The European Union lived a few months in polemic, while was debating about the European Constitution, publicly felt a break between supporters and opponents to the war.
Oil Resources of Iraq
Le Monde, 03.03. 2005
About Iraq 2
Decision Making 15
How did governments decide that they want to take part in the war? 15
How did USA decide that they want to invade Iraq? 17
Problem Solving 19
Limitations of the rational process 20