The role of professionals versus appointees, their power and influence, and their working relationships within American government today?

Professionals versus Appointees

The professionals that involved in decision to go to war with Iraq are: the republic of Iraq, UN assistance mission for Iraq as well as NATO training mission – Iraq. Regarding the professionals point of view; the decisions made in the past can be analyzed to see whether any particular decision was accurate or mistaken, and what else could have been done to make a better decision at that time. When a decision has been made, and whatever it proved to be, why there is a need to analyze those decisions. The answer to this vital question is that when the world has faced those situations, where some defining decisions were made, the world can again come to a situation, where things would be similar to the past. When past decisions are analyzed properly, and their pros & cons determined comprehensively, better decisions can be made to similar situations. It is a fact that people have the diversity of opinions, so when there is any decision to analyze, you will always perceive people, who will talk in favor of the decision, but there will always be a fraction, which would go against the popular stance, and they will talk against those decisions.

Some appointees like Armies, news telecasters or newspaper writer or article writers as well as the protesters have played a very important role to start the war with Iraq. The news reporters, telecasters and the writers have effectively play a role to start the war by telecasting the hateful news that was the factor to spread the fire in the forest to burn everything. All of the news and articles made the things more complicated as well as more crucial which could not be handled. The second appointees were the armies that were ready to fight every time. The decision to start the war against Iraq by the opponent’s government so easy. In the other words, the newscasters and writers were the basic factors who did play the role to make the decisions easy to start the war.

This is what occurred with the United States’ decision to go to war in Iraq. There was a large fraction of Americans who believed the decision was not a good one by President Bush’s administration, because they could not prove their actual claims. On the hand, there were people around the world including the United States, who were in favor of the decision, and they still believed that decision to invade Iraq was needed at that time. Therefore, there was the idea if this so was an ethical decision to do. In this paper, the overall decision will be analyzed keeping both points of views in context, and further, it will discuss the individuals, who held authority position in the American political landscape (Pillar, 2018). This analysis is to investigate their roles as appointees as it differs from professionals.

As said by Brent Scowcroft

“Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ““mission creep,” . . . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable ““exit strategy”” we could see. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivable still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land” 

            There is one more point of view by the appointees, which is held by skeptics, who believe that aggressive strategy is not the way forward, and go against the popular opinion, questioning its merits. When the United States made a decision in 2003 that they would invade Iraq to remove Saddam. Some explanations were given that Saddam is a threat to democracy and people of Iraq, and he also has weapons of mass destruction, as he was a risk to the international community. But skeptics were not ready to buy this argument. It is not that they were not against Saddam, or they did not want democracy in Iraq, rather they were curious about the claims made by Bush administration. They believed that war with Iraq would open so many fronts for the United States to fight because the country was already fighting a war on terrorism. When Iraq would be invaded, the United States will not be safer, rather it would have more risks because of producing new radical Muslim terrorists(Badie, 2010).

            If we take a look at both points of views, it can be said that people do have a difference of opinion on the basis of their observations and experiences. Which one would prove right? It is hard to determine which one is going to be the right decision in the end, and it can only be revealed once the decision is implemented. It has been mentioned that skeptics had conflicting opinions on invading Iraq. There were people from the State Department, military and government, who were part of both groups. But their opinion did not matter. It means that when such decisions have to be made, the power is in the hands of President and government of the United States. President Bush believed that going to war with Iraq was the right decision at that time because reports were coming that Saddam had weapons of mass destructions. If this claim is taken as true, then invading Iraq was a must thing to do, but when Iraq war was over, the United States was proved false in its claims as weapons of mass destructions were not found. Then they tried to cover this up by saying that Saddam was a threat in so many ways, and now people of Iraq would enjoy the fruits of democracy (Hassan, 1999).

            With the decision of invading Iraq in 2003 is discussed, it remains to be one of the most controversial topics because the decision had so many complications afterward. Moreover, the U.S and President went into this war with a claim that Saddam Hussein is not only a threat for people and democracy of Iraq, but he is also a threat for the United States and the international community because he has weapons of mass destruction. It is important to go back in time and review the events of the 1990s when Kuwait was invaded by Saddam Hussein. President Bush realized the situation, and an international coalition was assembled to throw Saddam out of Kuwait (Inghilleri, 2010). The decision was an obvious one that the United States was trying to help Kuwait remove Saddam, who was a threat for people of Kuwait. Moreover, Kuwait did not have enough capacity to fight this war, so the U.S sent its ground forces, which were able to defeat Saddam Hussein and forces. It is important to know what ensued afterward; the United States decided to pull troops from the ground, once the mission was over, and it was decided that the U.S will not invade Iraq to destroy Saddam and his army. It was decided because the U.S believed that they did not have the mandate to do so since the international coalition was developed to save Kuwait.

            The question is whether this argument was morally enough for everyone involved, and the answer is “no” because conservatives believed that the United States should have adopted an aggressive foreign policy, and Iraq should have been invaded to stop Saddam from doing further actions in future, as he did in Kuwait’s. from the information, it can be seen that US troops were looking to drive the Iraqi from Kuwait. At that stage, the president of the U.S. ordered that there will be no Iranianin that country. He ordered them to make a “highway of death”0 of the Iraqian army in Kuwait (Pdfs. semanticscholar. org, 2013). There was  a viewpoint that Saddam Hussein should have been removed from his powers. Butit wasn’t the case as the United States did not go for this decision. Looking at these past events, one can see that people in government and other factions of society were in favor of the conservative approach. The issue is none of them are professionals on war and international relations. All of them had not enjoyed the powers to make such big decisions, which means that their point of view was not considerable. It is always important to acquire policy advice from professionals of war and international foreign policy. President Bush must have consulted with U.S establishments and army, whether they should go to war in Iraq at that time, and when professionals would not have found any particular reasons, and then such decision was not made.

Working relationships within American government

The overall situation is showing that when decisions are not made by professionals or when professionals are pressurized by non-professionals political elite, then decisions don’t prove right in the long term(Kull, Ramsay, & Lewis, 2003). The United States government did so many efforts to convinced other governments like the British Government that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were a threat to the whole western world, so they should join hands with the United States to fight this war and control weapons of mass destruction. Thus, democracy would be gifted to the people of Iraq. It is important to understand that democracy remains to be an important aspect for any society, but stability, security, and economy are a few other factors, which are vital for the people and their wellbeing. Iraq was freed from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, but they were left vulnerable for so many other issues and corrupt internal situations, where stability and security of the people were at stake. The political elite in the American government used their power and influence to make up justifications for the Iraq war, and they could not prove any of those claims. It means that such decisions should be made on the basis of intelligence reports, which are prepared by professional intelligence analysts(Kull, Ramsay, & Lewis, 2003).

B. In the modern global context, how do they profoundly shape “public purposes”?

Modern Global Context

The decisions are taken for the benefit of the public concerns, as it was due to the Saddam Hussein; that he could be a future threat for the security of the US. The incident 9/11 was also involved in this way. It is important to choose some pinpoint examples from the case that how political figures attempted to use their power and influences to justify that going to war with Iraq was indispensable, and if the decision is not taken, then the whole western world would have to bear severe consequences.Due to Iraq and Kuwait the economy of this country will become extremely weak. The reason is that Iraq completely destroyedthe economy structure. (Badie, 2010). It was evident that the Bush administration was trying to give every possible reason to convince the military and public opinion that the United States could not refrain from this war. A perspective was being built that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which should be restricted as early as possible. When it came to the CIA, their opinion was not supportive of the administration’s claim. The intelligence reports and information was not morally enough to establish a claim about weapons of mass destruction. Richard Cheney was the Vice President at that time, and several times, he visited headquarter of CIA. CIA was holding a view that Iraq was not an immediate issue or threat to the United States, but vice president and Bush administration were putting pressure on CIA and tough questions were being asked. Many former CIA members believed that such kind of visits from the vice president was never seen before in the history, and these visits were certainly being made to exert political pressure on CIA to come up with a conclusion, which favors the opinion of Bush administration(Record, 2003).

            The reports coming out of the CIA revealed that Iraq was not a big threat, because they did not have enough capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction on a large scale. But the CIA was withstanding pressure from the Department of Defense, which also wanted the CIA to support claims made by the government(Morrison, 2011). This political pressure was exerted by the Bush administration and its counterparts with the help of powers, which they had. If policymakers and people working in government have the skills and professionalism to intervene in such intelligence discussions, they are not the professional analysts and workers of an intelligence agency, which works with the best professionals, who have great skills, knowledge, and experience to deal with intelligence issues(Badie, 2010). The CIA is one of the best Intelligence agencies in the world because it has the best intelligence professionals. These professionals used their all methods and techniques to dig out facts from Iraq, and they were satisfied that Iraq was not posing any viable threats to the United States. The intelligence reports were not confirming any claim made by the government officials(Kull, Ramsay, & Lewis, 2003).

            One of the analysts from the state department explained the facts to the intelligence committee of senate that Bush administration was trying to influence the intelligence matters without needless pressure, and they are rational in thought about worst-case scenarios based on intelligence reports, whereas normally things don’t work like this. Adnan Hamdani believed that administration should not pressurize and they should rely on the professionalism of professional intelligence analysts, who have skills and experience in such matters, there were decision to made the fatal policies (Pbs.org, 2014). Intelligence matters have nothing to do with matters of administration, like intelligence professionals may not have any idea that how to run the administrative affairs. The above-mentioned facts are clearly showing that when administration intervenes in intelligence matters, then the decisions of going to war with Iraq war provedwrong in the end. The war with Iraq proved that CIA analysts were right in their reports that Iraq was not a threat to The United States, and there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The claim made by the Bush administration was just speculation that Iraq was having weapons of mass destructions(Pfiffner, 2018).

            According to Morrison, (2011) it is important to see how a narrative is built by such powerful and influential people in the government. They attempt to advance a public purpose, which suits their narrative more. It is vital to analyze that when people in power have authority and power; they make people believe, what they want them to believe. It is not a difficult thing for them to do, especially in this global arena, where information is spread easily. The people in power use their influence along with different propaganda techniques because it is easy to manipulate things by building a narrative with the help of media(Morrison, 2011).

But there are always two sections in media, one helps the powerful to achieve their public purpose, and but the other, which criticize the government for their actions. building a public purpose may not be that easy, as it looks. It is important to mention here that with the advancement of technology such as laptops, smartphones, social media, and internet; the people get real-time information quicker than ever before. There was a time when the public was reliant on electronic and press media to get information, but it is not the case anymore. Now, news can spread faster, even before it is given attention to the electronic media. So, as time passed with these dominating technologies, the public is more informed(Pfiffner, 2018).

When Iraq was invaded by the United States, the technology was not that swift and social media had no such influence. Still, there was many amongst government and public that invading Iraq was not a good choice by Bush administration. They had good logic behind their arguments that the United States was already fighting a war against terrorism, and entering into another conflict could be a disaster in so many ways. Government officials with powers were not ready to accept this argument. They had their own agenda to pursue. They did it by propagating that the U.S can be under threat from Iraq and Saddam Hussein, if Saddam is not eliminated, and democracy is not revived. The influence and power were used with full extent, and that’s why the United States easily convinced the United Kingdom to join hands in this war against Saddam Hussein(Morrison, 2011).

However, when things are looked around, all was not good in favor of those, who were propagating war in Iraq. There are many facts to elaborate that how public all around the world reacted to this decision. It was observed that protests were held on large scales across Europe and other parts of the world, which were against the invasion of Iraq. It has been said that few of those protests were even largest in the history of anti-war protests. The people gathered in solidarity with Iraq and they asked for any peaceful settlement for the issue. But such large-scale protests and public opinion could not stop the war to happen, because the people in power had already decided that war is the only option to choose. It shows that their power and influence is the only reality in this world. When powerful people make their decisions, and they have all the justifications in their minds, then there is no on stopping them to do so, and Iraq war is the biggest example of this bitter reality. It was later revealed that going into war with Iraq was a bad decision made by Bush administration, and many of the people had already said that Bush administration was misleading people to mold public opinion in their favor, as weapons of mass destruction were just a perception, built by the government(Hassan, 1999).

If it had any reality, then Saddam Hussein would have shown his intent and aggression, and he might have threatened the United States with those weapons of mass destruction. Mere speculation was the basis of starting a new conflict, which was unfair to people of Iraq. They were not even asked, whether they want things to happen like this. Their opinion should have been heard, and any proper way should have been selected to resolve the situation(Pfiffner, 2018).

            After analyzing all aspects of the case study, and all facts related to invasion in Iraq by the United States, it is evident that there can be hundreds of arguments and opinions, there can be protests, but what matter is the opinion and viewpoint of those, who are in power, and who have their influence to make major decisions. They are so powerful that it is easy for them to build public purpose and turn things in their favor so that they can achieve, what they want to achieve(Morrison, 2011).

Conclusion of the decision to go to war with Iraq

The discrepancy within the community whole over the world which aligned with the disagreement that appears from the American public regarding the war perception with Iraq was reflected within partitions in the government of the U.S. The reason was due to the idea that Saddam Hussein could be a future threat for the security of the US. In addition to this, they also have the same opinion that the US military has the ability to establish an independent government in Iraq which would able to give the benefits for the Middle East. The incident 9/11 has made the former President Bush apply the vision that there is a serious threat that the national security needed to address.

On the other hand, there were also some skeptics around the possibility that the war aims to remove Saddam Hussein would really able to deliver democracy to Iraq. In addition to this, some of the people who have doubt were also questioning around some states that the government created about Saddam Hussein. However, even though some of the doubters were mentioned as the military leaders and also the members of Bush’s administration, but, because they were tied and had to follow the President, then they did not have any courage to speak up about their opinions.

When things are analyzed in today’s global context, it is still easier for these powerful people to manipulate facts, and mislead people in so many ways. They can develop their agenda and perspective, and make decisions, which suit their arguments. This is what has happened in the case of the Iraq War. Many knew that intelligence reports were wrongly interpreted and used, and the CIA had no profound evidence to say that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. But the Bush administration and neocons were the powerful ones, who had power and influence in their hands. So, they did not care about any criticism and protest, and the United States went into war with Iraq. It was time, who revealed that decision made by Bush administration, and perspective built by neocons was wrong, and Skeptics were rightfully doubtful on this decision. Supporting Evidence

There is a lesson to learn from the Iraq war, for all-powerful and influential people all around the world that they must bring real facts to consider any decision. Their speculation and will should not be included in the major decision-making process, because decisions made by powerful people influence others in so many ways. Hence, the claims that Saddam Hussein would create a direct threat to the US actually only turned to be most effective within the satisfying political support for the war itself. It was proven with the fact that, right after the war, there was no threat founded from Saddam Hussein to the US. Thus, the Bush administration straightaway switch its justification and defended with claiming that if Iraq could be created as a democratic nation, then it would also able to substitute the form of democracy for other countries in the Middle East.However, they should moreshow the responsibility towards society as well, rather just pursuing their own agendas, and thus, it would be better than only giving any excuses. This big lesson should not only teach the US government and its political leaders. Instead, it should also touch all of the worldwide leaders to be more responsible in making any decisions.

References of the decision to go to war with Iraq