George W. Bush During Afghanistan’s War on Terror Political Analysis

ALFONSO OTERO MIRELES 938394 FOREING POLICY George W. shrub during Afghanistans struggle on Terror POLITICAL ANALYSIS BASED ON DONNA H. KERR The bourn War on Terror refers to an ongoing, oecumenical campaign against terrorism guide by the joined States and back up by several some other countries, roughly nonoriously England and members of NATO. The term was firstborn enjoyment under George W. scrubs organisation following the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States, where 2996 people lost their lives and much(prenominal) than 6000 others were injured.Within months after the 9/11 attacks, the US sent troops to Afghanistan beca economic consumption this was believed to be the operational base for Al-Qaeda, at the same time the US looked to disinvest the Taliban regime and Bring Democracy to this middle eastern country. Two years after the occupation, and without ease finding Bin Laden, the US embarks in yet another(prenominal) military invasion, this tim e against Iraq. This War on Terror has been worldwide known as the Bush War, due to his effusive support and controversy.The implementing component during Afghanistans struggle is without a doubt the Bush administration, they argon the ones who started it, actual it and spent the most money on implementing the war. The authorizing agent in this daub would arguably be the United Nations because According to the UNs rules, The US had to startle approval from the UNs Security Council in order to go forrard with the wars. In the case of Afghanistan, the UN accepted the occupancy, backing up their decision with the go for 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 exhibit for the United States and the world and how nobody, not even off the United States was safe from another possible attack. The recurring conditions o f post-traumatic fear and terrorism fobia became a part of the day-to-day life of the average North Ameri put up the constant news reports on violence in some Middle Eastern countries was in like manner a condition that needed to be fixed by the USs democracy Since its start the United States has maintained itself stable in ll of his policies regarding Afghanistan, they defend indeed substituted policies in Iraq (after leaving the country) plainly as to Afghanistan they have hardly talked and promised to change it, but up until this day thither has been not a notorious substitution of policies. All important declaration were made worldly, about everyone in the world was aware of the USs decision of invade Afghanistan, and most of Bushs declarations towards the topic.Of racecourse the relevant public in this case would be the USs administration and population, the UKs government and population and any other country that supported or was against the war, also the United Nati ons council and of course and Afghanistans entire population and ruling powers. GEORGE W. crotch hair PERFORMANCE DURING IRAQs WAR Bushs administration decided to go ahead and send troops to Iraq in 2003. With a interchangeable 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 hand destruction and some claims that linked Iraqi officials with terrorist group A-Qaeda. The deficiency of certify 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 Iraqs land until December 2011. The military prescience of the US cool off remains in Af ghanistan up-until this day. Bushs administration main goals and objectives was primarily finding this infamous Weapons of Mass destruction, work down and get rid of all officials linked to Al-Qaeda, this included the nations leader Sadaam Hussein, who aside from universe incriminate 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 with(predicate) the event 1441 to come clean about the weapons of mass destruction. Iraq allowed inspectors to go and search for them. The United States blamed Iraqs government of not being cooperative, and went ahead and used the force even though the resolution didnt authorize the use of force even if they had been found. This is when he first pickaxe for Bush comes, he couldve easily gone the other elbow room and hardly acccept the fact that at that place may not have been any secret weapons in the first place and not does anyt hing relevant in Iraq, including not removing Sadam Hussein from power. A second resource could have been accepting the UNs statement of not using the force, admitting that there isnt enough proof of the harboring of weapons but allay destitute Hussein from power, and install a US hosted presidency.The third option would be also to dethrone Hussein, enlistment looking for weapons but stop not installing a US government overseas and just let the Iraqi people decide for themselves. If Bush simply disown from all accusations against Iraq, sent the troops back and not do anything against Hussein, there wouldve been an initial reaction of public opinion concerning mainly on Bushs 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 lull affect the economy but not as much as it did in reality, of course depending on when the decision wouldve been made. Supposing that Bush had acce pted its unlawful 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 harsh at all when it involves the US and wars. The Iraqi people could choose some(prenominal) form of government they wanted, which for me I think it sounds fair, it shouldnt 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 coun tries and organizations including peace corps and the UN could also help out control the mayhem. Many theories surrounding the verity of this accusations and the lack of overall try that backed up the USs actions led to questioning over the real goals for George W. Bush in Iraq. humans opposition claimed that Bush was looking only in Iraq for oil and more power. Accoring to author John Harold Chapman of UKs 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 remedy 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 insurance against any extremists in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The prisoners dilemma repr esent 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 policy-making 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 establish on the hypothetically situation in which both know the weapons are a lie. 1)In one paragraph, describe and analyze the leaders 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 its a trick that he has played to the US government, he can go and invade a for eign country, in the case of Iraq, learned that there isnt enough proof to go and invade, both a well-favored number or Iraqui noncombatants and US soldiers will lose their lives, public debt will increase, the already unstable economy will get immediately affected but at the end, he uses this psychological tool to rotate 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 pickaxe of information provided to the public regarding the ride out of the help post-hurricane. Both appointments occurred under prexy Bush, who in 2001 also appointed two other civilians, James Roche (General Motors) and doubting Thomas E. White (Enron), to head the Air Force and Army. William D. Hartung, Head of the Arms tack 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, Bushs 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 think 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-Qaedas connection to Iraq and evidently about the weapons. Comments trade good job, but you missed the Bureaucratic Model section Some of your bibliography change was not correct. Grade B+ Kerr, D. (1976). The logic of policy and successful policies. constitution 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. saucy 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=PMMIDDLEEAST UN RESOLUTION 1441 http//www. undemocracy. com/securitycouncil/meeting_4644pg010-bk01 JOHN HARROLD CHAPMAN, http//www. guardian. co. uk/world/2004/jul/28/iraq. usa