The War in Iraq

Residual Issues and Consequences

Generally speaking, Western people are accustomed to direct reciprocity.   An action done brings about a suitable reaction, and usually immediately.   Iraqi culture, however, is founded on an Islam-based precept that relationships be extant and proven before any reciprocity may occur.   In Western eyes, freeing the people from an oppressive dictatorship should have prompted both gratitude and an eagerness to develop a new and better government.  To the Iraqis, however,  trust and friendship had not been confirmed before the actions of the U.S., and the military efforts themselves were consequently viewed with suspicion (Hull, 2009,  p. 36).   This sort of cultural schism has been an enormous factor in the duration of the war in Iraq, as it serves to explain failures to achieve Iraqi progress incomprehensible to Americans. 

Then, and carrying even more unsettling implications, is the distinct possibility of a Western hubris at play, in further justifying the American “liberating” of Iraq.    In today's world, there is a vastly widened sense of how individual cultures must be respected, which is a consequence of the global commerce, interactions, and communication available.   The insularity of the past, wherein a particular nation or government – such as Spain – could blithely assume that it was obligated to infuse its ideologies and standards on another culture, is seen today as a xenophobic form of arrogance.   However, in a report from the United States Institute for Peace (USIP), Eric Davis presents an argument for precisely this, in regard to Iraq and American cultural influences there.   The report, emanating from Washington, D.C.,  is extraordinary in its approach.   While Davis acknowledges that the majority of Iraqis are too young to have known anything other than authoritarian rule, he asserts that the inculcating of Western, democratic values, such as fostering an appreciation for ethnic differences, will help serve to return Iraq to its ancient state as a democratic society (Davis,  2008,  p. 18).   It is worth noting that, while asserting itself as a non-partisan organization, the USIP is funded by Congress.   The agenda set out in Davis's report bespeaks an absolute confidence in an intrinsic superiority in Western cultural values.

It may be reasonably argued, of course, that the active promotion of ethnic diversity is by no means a strictly Western ideology or pursuit.   Moreover, it is hardly outrageous to assert that such an ideology is ethically sound, no matter the cultural background in question; being decent and respectful to those different than the mainstream seems to indicate a more evolved, and more civilized, society.   Therein, however, lies the irony of the proposal, for it arises from an ideology where such values are unquestioned, and consequently ignores belief systems not in accord with it.   A cultural ideology flourishes because it has the support of the multitude and, existing within this multitude, the ideology goes unexamined.    America, vast and powerful, notoriously takes perhaps undue pride in its own, independent culture, and may be unable to perceive that such a culture is not desired elsewhere.   This factor alone, irrespective of the agenda engineered by the Bush government, seriously undermines the integrity of the U.S. war in Iraq.

Finally, it must be addressed that a consequence of the Iraq war has yet to be fully felt at home, and it is one beyond calculating the lives lost and billions of dollars expended.   For years, it has been steadily uncovered that resident Bush was adhering to a covert agenda in invading Iraq, and this knowledge must create a level of innate mistrust int the American people.  Cynicism of varying degrees has, of course, always been evident within the nation; it is, moreover, a healthy attribute of a population wary of its government failing to adhere to its purported ideals.  What has emerged from the Bush years and the Iraq conflict, however, is something rather different.   It is not a concerned and sensible skepticism regarding the nation's leaders, but a bitterness toward them from having been intentionally exploited.   Great nations are organic in nature, and this quality, imbued by the cynicism referred to, frequently may prompt impulses of forgiveness in a people.   Leaders fail or commit wrongdoing, but time and lessened repercussions render such crimes moderate, and even excusable.   President Bush, however, exploited the nation when it was at its most vulnerable, and frightened.   Moreover, he used that vulnerability to promote an agenda that killed thousands of Americans and others, all for a goal never honestly presented.   It is unlikely, then, that a future president will be enabled to so cavalierly take the country into war.

Conclusion

In a sequence of events simultaneously inexplicable and cohesive, the U.S. was violated by an Arab terrorist force called AL-Qaeda and, a short time later, launched an invasion against an Arab state, Iraq.    A dictator was deposed and executed and, nearly ten years after the onset, an end to U.S. involvement is in sight.   This scenario, however, is marred by massive inconsistencies within it, for the dictator executed had not attacked the U.S., nor had been verified as a significant threat.   Moreover, and most appallingly, it has become increasingly evident that President Bush's government intentionally misled the American people in regard to the danger Iraq posed, playing upon post-9/11 fears to generate support for the war.   This atmosphere of fear set in place by terrorist attacks enabled President Bush to engage in a war that has been unjust, ethically invalid, and ultimately a camouflage for a variety of political agendas both global and national.

Get help from an online essay writing service and receive a customized essay on your topic written by experienced professionals.