How Long Can the US Be at War?

Name: Instructor: Institution: Social Sciences Date: The Ethics and Practicality of the War in Afghanistan and Iraq The United States of America, arguably the world's most powerful nation, and one of the most developed on the planet, has a rather curious foreign policy. The country has got a proud history that helped shape up its various forms of governance to achieve an optimum and widely acceptable form of internal governance that it enjoys right now, which has also made it the greatest democracy on earth. After achieving internal governance, the nation developed a new strategy to ensure global domination. This is the basis of its foreign policy in general. From the early years of the last century, the country has continuously tried exerting its influence over the rest of the world, as it tests its might over the other nations. Its watershed moment came during the Second World War, when it contributed significantly, to the defeat of Germany. This is what effectively ended the war. There is the other major war that America engaged in the Far East, the Vietnam War. Questions still linger on the reasons behind it, as the country sent thousands and thousands of soldiers in a never-ending war. There is, however, the later foreign engagements that the U.S has taken, which seem to raise quite a lot of controversy; the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ever since the invasion in the early 2000s, the United States has realized very little success. Initially, it was the fight against global terrorism, after the bombing of the WTO in September 2001.Later on, the war continuously evolved, from peacekeeping to stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan, while there was also the other eye on the rich oil reserves in these nations, particularly Iraq. It should be noted that a lot of resources, regarding both humans, infrastructural and monetary, are being spent on the war. The whole thing has raised a debate on whether the war is ethical or just a practical application of some theory. The United States deems the war in the Middle East justified because they are fighting off three different challenges; terrorism, despotic regimes and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. Nations such as South Korea and Iraq itself were being ruled by autocratic leaders, who forced their rule over the people. To the United States, such individuals were rather difficult to manipulate, control, or even at the least, to contain. When the question about the Iraq invasion is brought up, the foremost reason given is that it was due to the terrorist threat posed by Al Qaeda group, which at that time was the largest terrorist organization in the world, and the search for weapons of mass destruction, which the Saddam government had been accused of having. George Bush, the then U.S President, opted not to differentiate between the terrorists and the nations that harbored them, instead taking both of them as one and the same thing; enemies of the U.S. One great foreign policy of the United States is its nonnegotiation with terrorists and terrorist organizations. This is mainly the main reason as to why Afghanistan was quickly invaded, since the United States believed it to be the breeding ground for the terrorist group and other minor extremist movements, such as the Taliban. The region of Torabora was also considered the training ground for these militants. This is the beginning of the unethical aspect of the entire war. The United States, continuously sent its troops into the Middle East to fight militants and restore peace in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively, are treating these regions as guinea pigs. They are making these regions a test of their prowess and an actual training ground for their military. The deserts of Afghanistan are now being used as the testing grounds for their weapons while millions of people are getting killed in the crossfire between them and the militants. It is out of this that the concept of muscular unilateralism comes in. The United States have never appeared so vulnerable and exposed to a threat, as it was during the events of 9/11.Right afterward, the United States opted to go it all alone, especially after trying to garner support from the other nations unsuccessfully. This option to go to war is in some way, an exercise of the country's doctrine of testing, and forcing its military might over other nations. It is this muscular unilateralism that gives rise to the application of preemptive force, which subsequently raises more ethical questions. It is indeed permissible and quite ethical to use some degree of force. However, such an application wholly depends on the fact that the recipient of the force poses an imminent, grave threat to the nation. Categorizing Iraq as a candidate for preemptive force is something else altogether. According to Elshtain, Iraq was a perfect fit for this requirement, not because it was evidently ready to strike, but due to its dangerous plans and capabilities for the long-term. From his interpretation, therefore, the invasion of Iraq by the United States was supposed to be taken as a preventive measure. However, there is very little proof to indicate that indeed Iraq posed a ‘grave threat' to the United States. On the other hand, Iraq was also considered a significant player in the arming and financing of these terrorist groups, particularly Al Qaeda.During this time, Iraq was being accused of facilitating the insurgency against Turkey by the militants, in addition to continuously arming Palestinian militants in their prolonged war against Israel. Saddam Hussein, the then president of Iraq, also began having a great interest in developing weapons of mass destruction. This was quite a scary proposition for the United States since it would automatically mean that the Iraqi government would give some of these weapons to terrorists, which would be a significant threat to global, and particularly, American safety. An alliance between Iraq and the terrorist movements would bring about results that would be catastrophic, more devastating than the September 11 attacks in the U.S. The Bush administration had to do something, quick, to prevent the situation. They invaded Iraq. This is, however, the official reasons for the invasion and war (Powers). On taking up a more geopolitical approach to the whole issue, the reasons quickly change. Iraq up to the early 2000s was a very powerful nation, particularly in the middle east. This can be exemplified by the Gulf War, which it was an outstanding player. After the terror attacks of September 11, it was upon the United States government, to restore the confidence and that feeling of invincibility among the people, the world over. Iraq, and Saddam in particular were the best targets for the United States since they had substantial reasons to be attacked; support for terrorism, and harboring weapons of mass destruction (Powers).Through the ousting of Saddam from power, the Bush government would have done quite greatly, in ensuring that public confidence and the power of the U.S, is still intact. The invasion of Iraq is rather more like a message that the United States is trying to send to the world, that it is in charge of controlling behavior. Such a concept is based on realist ideologies advanced by Daniel Lieberfield, who asserts that the invasion was supposed to be a reminder of the United State's ability to use force when need be. This pointed out further to the fact that the United States was at the top of the World Order. Considering that Iraq was powerful at the time, its invasion and subsequent removal of Saddam would be a message to the other Middle Eastern countries that they need to cooperate with the United States or face a similar fate. It should be noted that Iraq has one of the world's largest oil reserves. This is to mean that there is indeed a rather more covert reason as to why the United States invaded it. This can be looked at from two different perspectives. First of all, the oil reserves in its possession inevitably make Iraq a very influential player in Asian...