ALFONSO OTERO MIRELES 938394 FOREING POLICY George W. Bush during Afghanistan’s War on Terror POLITICAL ANALYSIS BASED ON DONNA H. KERR The term War on Terror refers to an ongoing, worldwide campaign against terrorism led by the United States and supported by several other countries, most notoriously England and members of NATO. The term was first used under George W. Bush’s administration following the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States, where 2996 people lost their lives and more than 6000 others were injured.
Within months after the 9/11 attacks, the US sent troops to Afghanistan because this was believed to be the operational base for Al-Qaeda, at the same time the US looked to dethrone the Taliban regime and ‘’Bring Democracy’’ to this middle eastern country. Two years after the occupation, and without yet finding Bin Laden, the US embarks in yet another military invasion, this time against Iraq. This War on Terror has been worldwide known as the Bush War, due to his effusive support and controversy.
The implementing agent during Afghanistan’s war is without a doubt the Bush administration, they are the ones who started it, developed it and spent the most money on implementing the war. The authorizing agent in this situation would arguably be the United Nations because According to the UN’s rules, The US had to get approval from the UN’s Security Council in order to go ahead with the wars. In the case of Afghanistan, the UN accepted the occupancy, backing up their decision with the consent of most members plus an official report that stated that around 70% of deaths in this country were caused by the Taliban regime.
The Conditional Imperative was the danger that Middle-Eastern Terrorist groups represent for the United States and the world and how nobody, not even the United States was safe from another possible attack. The recurring conditions of post-traumatic fear and terrorism fobia became a part of the everyday life of the average North American; the constant news reports on violence in some Middle Eastern countries was also a condition that needed to be ‘’fixed’’ by the US’s democracy Since its start the United States has maintained itself stable in ll of his policies regarding Afghanistan, they have indeed substituted policies in Iraq (after leaving the country) but as to Afghanistan they have only talked and promised to change it, but up until this day there has been not a notorious substitution of policies. All important declaration were made publicly, virtually everyone in the world was aware of the US’s decision of invading Afghanistan, and most of Bush’s declarations towards the topic.
Of course the relevant public in this case would be the US’s government and population, the UK’s government and population and any other country that supported or was against the war, also the United Nations council and of course and Afghanistan’s entire population and ruling powers. GEORGE W. BUSH PERFORMANCE DURING IRAQ’s WAR Bush’s administration decided to go ahead and send troops to Iraq in 2003. With a similar approach as in Afghanistan, the occupation was led by George W.
Bush and supported mainly by the UK. The main reasons where the belief that the Iraqi government was harboring weapons of mass destruction and some claims that linked Iraqi officials with terrorist group A-Qaeda. The lack of evidence of this weapons and the high costs of the two wars during times of economic instabilities led to an avalanche of national and international criticism and lack of support for the Bush administration, even though no consistent proof was (or has up to this day) been presented, George W.
Bush won the following reelections and the North American troops remained officially in Iraq’s soil until December 2011. The military prescience of the US still remains in Afghanistan up-until this day. Bush’s administration main goals and objectives was primarily finding this infamous Weapons of Mass destruction, hunt down and get rid of all officials linked to Al-Qaeda, this included the nation’s leader Sadaam Hussein, who aside from being accused of crimes against humanity he was also believed to be linked to Al-Qaeda an of course to ‘’Bring Democracy’’ to this country.
The UN gave Iraq one last opportunity through the resolution 1441 to come clean about the weapons of mass destruction. Iraq allowed inspectors to go and search for them. The United States blamed Iraq’s government of not being cooperative, and went ahead and used the force even though the resolution didn’t authorize the use of force even if they had been found. This is when he first option for Bush comes, he could’ve easily gone the other way and simply acccept the fact that there may not have been any secret weapons in the first place and not does anything relevant in Iraq, including not removing Sadam Hussein from power. A second option could have been accepting the UN’s statement of not using the force, admitting that there isn’t enough proof of the harboring of weapons but still destitute Hussein from power, and install a US hosted presidency.
The third option would be also to dethrone Hussein, stop looking for weapons but stop not installing a US government overseas and simply let the Iraqi people decide for themselves. If Bush simply retracted from all accusations against Iraq, sent the troops back and not do anything against Hussein, there would’ve been an initial reaction of public opinion concerning mainly on Bush’s indecision and lack of consistent information. It would be hard to simply accept they were wrong and just leave.
Moneywise, the costs of sending troops would still affect the economy but not as much as it did in reality, of course depending on when the decision would’ve been made. Supposing that Bush had accepted its wrongful information referring weapons of mass destruction, decided to leave the country, but not without restituting Hussein, I guess public opinion would judge this decision harsh, he would still increase public debt paying for the time of the troops in Iraq, but would maintain a high influence on this country by imposing its US funded government.
I think in a utopian world, Bush should have gone with decision number 3, which meant the same as option two but without imposing its own ‘’democratic’’ government, this would appear as if the country was acting upon mere sympathy, a situation not common at all when it involves the US and wars. The Iraqi people could choose whatever form of government they wanted, which for me I think it sounds fair, it shouldn’t be up to the superpowers decide who will rule over weaker countries, but on the other hand I would suppose violence would increase, division and the local hunt for power could bring a mess of a consequence.
Other countries and organizations including peace corps and the UN could also help out control the mayhem. Many theories surrounding the veracity of this accusations and the lack of overall evidence that backed up the US’s actions led to questioning over the real goals for George W. Bush in Iraq. Public opposition claimed that Bush was looking only in Iraq for oil and more power. Accoring to author John Harold Chapman of UK’s newspaper, the whole purpose behind the war was the hunt for oil and that the economic situation upon which the United States was going through justifies this answer.
In his own words: Control over Iraqi oil should improve security of supplies to the US, and possibly the UK, with the development and exploration contracts between Saddam and China, France, India, Indonesia and Russia being set aside in favour of US and possibly British companies. And a US military presence in Iraq is an insurance policy against any extremists in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The prisoners dilemma represent BUSH on one hand with two options, whether to admit the lack of proof refereeing to weapons of mass destructions in Iraq, and on the other hand the percentage of his political party that supports him.
Which in a way are pretending not to know about the lack of evidence and in a way ‘’hope for the other prisoner to be quiet. All assumptions are based on the hypothetically situation in which both know the weapons are a lie. 1)In one paragraph, describe and analyze the leader’s use of “cognitive shortcuts” and experience with “cognitive dissonance. ” For example, the policy and culture of the Bush administration was one of war expansion, regardless of fact. They sought war and when confronted with conflicting evidence and faulty intelligence on Saddam Hussein, they went ahead and invaded anyway.
Minimum paragraphs: 1 Minimum sources: 1 (excluding Neack) As to cognitive dissonance and Bush, I would say it’s a trick that he has played to the US government, he can go and invade a foreign country, in the case of Iraq, knowing that there isn’t enough proof to go and invade, both a big number or Iraqui civilians and US soldiers will lose their lives, public debt will increase, the already unstable economy will get directly affected but at the end, he uses this psychological tool to exclude and not metion the downside of going to war and just promising democracy for the needy, a ‘’greater good’’.
Hurrican Katrin is also a good example of the hand-picking selection of information provided to the public regarding the delay of the help post-hurricane. Both appointments occurred under President Bush, who in 2001 also appointed two other civilians, James Roche (General Motors) and Thomas E. White (Enron), to head the Air Force and Army. William D. Hartung, Head of the Arms Trade Resource Center, challenged the appointments because he felt it was unethical to appoint businessmenwhose former companies would be the prime beneficiaries of increases in defense spending.
Hartung further noted that at no time in recent history had military appointments been made from the civilian sector. With the use of cognitive shortcuts, Bush’s administration has been dealing with the big percentage of public discontent, providing only certain information that could be relevant in some cases, for example during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, he never gave a real reason why there was a significant delay of help provided by the government, but instead he only focused on informing how much the delayed help forces helped once they arrived there.
Iraq would still be the best example, by the big amoung of congnotive shortcuts used to cover the lack of information regarding Al-Qaeda’s connection to Iraq and evidently about the weapons. Comments: Good job, but you missed the Bureaucratic Model section! Some of your bibliography formatting was not correct. Grade: B+ Kerr, D. (1976). The logic of ‘policy” and successful policies. Policy Sciences, 7(3), 351-363. Neack, L. (2008). The new foreign policy: Power seeking in a globalized era. (Second ed. . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Breuning, M. (2007). Foreign policy analysis: A comparative introduction. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. ARTICLE UN – TALIBAN 70% DEATHS http://articles. cnn. com/2011-12-15/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-us-ceremony_1_iraq-war-iraq-body-count-iraqis-struggle? _s=PM:MIDDLEEAST UN RESOLUTION 1441 http://www. undemocracy. com/securitycouncil/meeting_4644#pg010-bk01 JOHN HARROLD CHAPMAN, http://www. guardian. co. uk/world/2004/jul/28/iraq. usa