Iraq War 2003: Why George Bush and Tony Blair Are Responsible

Table of Contents

Introduction

March 2003 was a gloomy day when the United States and the United Kingdom, led by George W Bush and Tony Blair, started Iraq War 2003. The narrative they gave was that Iraq, under a tyrant leader like Saddam Hussein, was undermining the basic human rights of the local people and threatening poor neighbours and was preparing deadly weapons, notoriously termed as Weapons of Mass Destruction and nuclear bombs.

Rationales Behind Iraq War 2003

The fateful year 2003 wreaked havoc on the common people in Iraq as the U.S. and the U.K. military stepped in Iraq. They were not logical, but they did give some shallow rationales:

They wanted to oust Saddam Hussein, a despotic power, and he had no love for the folks within his country and those of neighbors.

Saddam-led Iraq was preparing Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear bombs, a clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. (U.N. Adopting Resolution 1441, pp 1-8). Soon after the attack, Bush was found saying, “We shall disarm Iraq.”

They wanted to rescue the neighbors of Iraq like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kuwait as they were on the verge of collapse when the U.S. stepped in.

George Bush or Tony Blair had no Legitimate Authority to Attack

But that is not the whole truth when you see things from wide perspectives. Take the first point that a non-legitimate monarch ruled Iraq. Let’s take it. Who gave George Bush or Tony Blair the authority to decide what is good for Iraq and what is not? Where do they get this legitimacy? Iraqis never gave them so.

Famous American social scientist Mearsheimer (Chap. 3, 6) condemned and criticized this policy of so-called helping other peoples without their legitimacy. The author clearly stated that the U.S. or the U.K. had no right to attack Iraq. He found the logic that the U.S. has an obligation to make the other world, to their definition, civilized and liberal. He termed this American madness as “The Great Delusion.”

“We in Congress would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now. Today we know these assessments were wrong.”

511-page U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Report, headed by Pat Roberts on Iraq War 2003

It clearly states that there were no signs or presence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That shows the scale of criminality that the U.S. and the U.K. government officials committed by attacking a sovereign state.

Iraq War 2003 was no War of Last Resort

It further adds to our knowledge that in hate of Saddam Hussein, they forgot the basic principle of war that war should always be the last option while the Chilcot Report shows that war was the only option.

Chilcot explains that the Iraq war 2003 was no war of “last resort”: this was a war of choice, unleashed “before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted.” The findings of this report suggest that the authorities who made this attack on Iraq should be indicted, and punishments should be exemplary.

U.S. did not Came to Rescue Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia

The first meeting of the National Security Council a few weeks after the attack was Kuwait was truly revealing. It best explained the nature of the U.S. war against Iraq and its hidden purposes. When asked about the fact that why no Kuwait’s representative was invited to participate in this most important meeting, one of the participants, a government official and representative of the U.S. government, said,

“Hey, too bad about Kuwait, but it’s just a gas station — and who cares whether the sign says Sinclair or Exxon?”

Marshall par. 1, 2003

Not Saddam but the U.S. Collaborated with Al-Qaeda

Many reports showed that the U.S. collaborated with Al-Qaeda, which badly damaged the false American narrative that Saddam Hussein was collaborating with Al-Qaeda, a banned terrorist organization (Bowden, 2011, par. 3). It revealed the U.S. hypocrisy and how the U.S. had close relationships with Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in 2004.

There are numerous reports and investigations on it that show how the U.S. is an ally and not an enemy of Al Quran. As it is proved that the U.S. and not Saddam Hussein was collaborating with Al-Qaeda, there remains no doubt about the legitimacy of the U.S. war against Iraq.

Bush had Personal Issues with Saddam Hussein

Some close officials in the Oval Office, Washington DC, hinted that it was the hatred of Saddam Hussein more than anything else that led to the American attack, and this hatred was for the reason that once Saddam Hussein called Bush senior a dog and then Bush junior as the son of a dog.

It may not seem the only reason, but it carries a lot of truth that this was why they wanted to make an example out of Saddam and destroy its economy and people, which they successfully did.

Aftermaths of the Iraq War 2003

These require thousands of pages to write the so-called unintended consequences of this war briefly. It had multifaceted repercussions on the various segments of society. Following are the top picks.

Over 1 millions Iraqis Died in Iraq War 2003

The most notable consequence of the U.S. war against Iraq was the humanitarian crisis. Millions were displaced, hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed based on poor intelligence reports. Americans were clueless about the situation of Iraq or Iraqis.

This annoying behaviour of the U.S. and the U.K. put 4 million common people on the roads displaced. Moreover, the number of casualties is over five hundred thousand National Geographic ( Vergano, 2003, par. 3-4.) But this report is no more relevant as it is about seven years old now. Recent statistics suggest it is over one million lost their lives let alone the economic loss of billions of dollars.. Apart from that, almost every one-third of Iraqi lives below the poetry line, which is the ramifications of the unjust war.

Ctastrophic Decision to Ousting Saddam Hussein and Abandoning Iraqi Army

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was not the perfect man to lead Iraq. Despite this, he was working as a strong bridge between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two arch-rivals. After his demise, the brain-trust in the U.S. and the U.K. started to realize their mistake to oust Saddam. It was simply a place where no one ruled; hence became a hotspot of terrorism, extremism, and instability.

The power vaccum after the Iraq war 2003 created the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or notoriously known as Daesh. The spineless American and British strategists made the blunder by attacking Iraq and then abandoning the Iraqi army. After being furloughed from the permanent job and no place, way, or skill, they became easy bait of terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda (Hassan, 2018, p. 1).

Bucca Camp and the Birth of ISIS

Additionally, they tortured the important Iraqi army officers on the forefront of defence against the U.S. Those who survived the atrocities committed became rebels, further putting Iraq in chaos. It was the Bucca camp, where ISIS was created by terrorizing those helpless people. America created ISIS, and it is the truth of the century.

Gary Hart, a US senator warned that the Iraq war 2003 would increase the risk of terrorism across the globe, which has been proven right (Hart, 2003, p. 1).

Economic Meltdown of Iraq

A fateful result of this war was the economic meltdown of Iraq. During Saddam Hussein’s time, most of the people lived a peaceful and good enough life. They had necessities and facilities, and education was booming; the hospitals were some of the most advanced in the Arab world.

But the time after the U.S. landed in Iraq has been very tough for the common people. The poverty has since then more than doubled, with one-third of them living below the poverty line. None else but the U.S. is responsible for the economic destruction of Iraq.

Historical Sites Damaged in Iraq War 2003

Iraq has been, to most historians, the oldest and the greatest cultural heritage of the world. Mesopotamia was this place, not anything else, which most of the world outside forgets. The National Library and the National Museum, along with many other notable institutions of Iraq, had to incur the destruction all over. Most important shrines were also bombed, which meant sheer pain for the public and the state.

It has become a fact, not a debate anymore, that the 2003 Iraq invasion of 2003 by the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Poland, and other like-minded countries was a breach of international law from any stretch of the imagination.

U.S. Misused International Law based on Preemptive Strike” as “Self-defense

The evil use of the technical term “Preemptive Strike” as “Self-defense” is no longer taken up. The UN Charter clearly says that war is the least option. While for American government officials, it was not only the first option but the best one. Relating it to ilusive American dream, they took it as religious obligation. Those who know article 51 of the UN Charter must learn its proper usage and understanding, not using it as a tool to enervate their opponents.

”All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

Charter of the United Nations, Article 2(4)

It means the territorial integrity and sovereignty of any state must be realized and observed. For this reason, Kofi Annan said that the U.S. invasion was against the spirit of the UN Charter hence illegal.

U.N. Chief Kofi Annan Condemned Iraq War 2003

Moreover, the war killed nearly a million innocent people, destroyed the economy, and annihilated their cultural and civilizational remains. It was a criminal act and not just a mistake. Then Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization, Kofi Annan (par. 3), condemned this attack for this reason.

“I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal.”

Kofi Annan on Iraq War 2003

Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. and the U.K. government officials decided to go for the Iraq war because they believed Iraq was making nuclear and chemical bombs.

However, the Iraqis were not, and they even didn’t have nuclear power plants there. Resultantly, they killed over a million folks. Those government officials, who judged it wrongly, should face persecution.

Iraq War 2003 was to maximize Persian Gulf Oil Flows

The single most important purpose behind the Iraq war 2003 was to maximize Persian Gulf oil flows for the United States and its allies. The infamous Project for a New American Century report (published in 1997) alarmed the United States about the increased demand for oil especially from the Persian Gulf and the possible energy crisis in the coming years.

The report said,

”While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification for the US to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. The need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

(Ahmed, 2014, p. 2)

In other words, the United States was looking for an excuse to establish its stronghold in the Arabian Peninsula to avoid any energy crisis. The report suggested that the U.S. could exploit “Middle East tension” especially surrounding Saddam Hussein.

Besides, the American and British oil and gas companies wanted to invest in Iraq and take hold of oil reserves. It was not possible with Saddam Hussein being the ruler of Iraq. The companies tried to strike a deal with Saddam but he had given a plethora of demands. Therefore, the U.S and the U.K began the Iraq war 2003 to remove Saddam Hussein and destabilize the region.

George Bush and Tony Blair should be Persecuted

The reaction to this report should not be limited to regrets or apologies because millions have been hurt, and this genie will still haunt the people for a very long time. International Criminal Court highlights eleventh heinous crimes, called Crimes Against Humanity, including murder, rape, sexual violence, extermination, slavery, and this war brought all for the Iraqis.

International Criminal Court (ICC) calls itself “an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”

Great liberal ideals demand that the two culprits (Tony Blair and George Bush) should face persecution. That no one, how strong or sacred, is not beyond the reach of the law. That all are equals and some are not more equals than others. So it should be the rationale behind this.

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda tried over 70 Rawandan Leaders for War Crimes

It will not be the only time that ICC try some top-notch leaders of a country. Rwanda genocide was a planned thing, so the prime minister was indicted. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda tried over 70 Rawandan leaders for war crimes.

Today’s situation demands the same structure of law. ICC should disallow Tony Blair and George Bush along with their family to participate in any politics. Moreover, they both should apologize for their crimes, treated the same way as was the case with the Sicilian Mafia, life imprisonment.