On March 20th 2003, a US led invasion was held in Iraq which lasted almost about 3 months. According to then President of the United States, George W. Bush and then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."On May 1 an end of major combat operations was declared, ending the invasion period and beginning the military occupation period. However, was this war really needed to put on end on Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq that has been considered as a threat to the United States? Moreover, does Iraq really possess the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as claimed by the United States? Or it was the control of Iraq's oil became the reason for United States to invade it? Nevertheless, there are pros and cons about the invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003.
Firstly, there was an issue about Iraq being a true threat to the United States. In his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush declared that Iraq was a member of the "Axis of Evil", and that, like North Korea and Iran, Iraq's attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a serious threat to U.S. national security. These claims were based on documents that were provided to him by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the government of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the US House of Representative also said that, "Iraq continue to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." There were evidences that Iraq and Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization that was blamed for the September 11 tragedy were linked together. It was possible for these both of United States enemies being linked together because both of this threats happens to be working together in making the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for Al-Qaeda members. Therefore, it was agreeable for the United States to consider Iraq as a threat to their nation as Iraq was being doubt by the whole world because of the secretive regime of Saddam Hussein. However, it was also vague that Iraq could be a possible threat to the United States or even the world itself as it has not acquired any capabilities to do so after the Gulf War that saw the entire Iraqi war machine had been dismantled. In the article 'Is Iraq a True Threat to US?' by Scott Ritter, he said that, "in direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." Before the war started, the UN had sent their inspectors to check on the possibility of weapon of mass destruction (WMD) but there were no evidence on it at all. Besides that, even though Iraq was capable of establishing at least the chemical and biological frontage, it was still not clear about their objective of doing so and because of that there is considered no threat exist to either the United States or the world. Therefore, there was huge doubt about the Bush administration invading Iraq without any legal evidences in hand at that time. Instead the Secretary of Defense then, Donald Rumsfeld notes "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'' However, it was doubtful for United States to hide the evidence as the Iraq invasion was a world known issue and the possibility of hiding it was there were actually no evidences at all.
Secondly, there was also issue about the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq possession. There were a lot of speculations over the Iraq possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Georges Sada, former 2-star General in the Iraqi Air Force stated in an interview that, "well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people. It was used against Kurds in the north, against Arabs." In the interview with Georges Sada, he also stated that, "well, up to the year 2002, in summer, they (WMD) were in Iraq. And after that, when Saddam realized that the inspectors are coming on the first of November and the Americans are coming, so he took the advantage of a natural disaster happened in Syria, a dam was broken. So he - he announced to the world that he is going to make an air bridge." What Georges Sada said in the interview maybe the truth about the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq that was sent to Syria since Iraq was still capable of developing not only chemical weapons but also biological weapons even though it was banned from doing so after the Gulf War in 1991. Therefore, the possibility of Iraq owning the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were there because Saddam Hussein himself was a very cunning leader of the nation and caused the world to be very doubtful of him and his regime. On the other hand, it was still unclear about Iraq possessing the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because until the end of invasion, there were no physical prove about it existence. In 2005, the Central Intelligence Agency released a report saying that no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had been found in Iraq. Mohamed ElBaradej, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said, "these activities have provided the basis for IAEA's statement that there are no indications of Iraq having retained any physical capability for the indigenous production of weapon-usable nuclear material in amounts of any practical significance, nor any indication Iraq has acquired or produced weapon-usable nuclear material other than the nuclear material verified by IAEA and removed from Iraq in accordance with paragraph 13 of resolution 687 (1991)." Because of that, it was surely that Iraq, if still capable of developing the weapons of mass destruction (WMD), cannot possibly veil the existence of it as they were constantly being monitored by the United States and the United Nation (UN) after the Gulf War in 1991. Therefore, the existence of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was doubtful and as President Saddam Hussein said, "These weapons do not come in small pills that you can hide in your pocket," explains the existence of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was merely a myth rather than truth.
Next, there was issue regarding the oil as reason for the United States to invade Iraq. It was well know underneath the invasion lies the true reason for the war which was the Iraq's oil as the big prize for the United States and the secret driver of Washington's war agenda. It was logic to assume this as Bush, a Texas oilman by background, was out to gain control of Iraq's reserves which is the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia. Abdel Bari Atwan, London-based editor-in-chief of the Arabic newspaper Al-Quds said, "If you control Iraqi reserves and Gulf States' reserves, you are in control of all supply, all production, all exports, so you can destroy the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), you can determine the price of oil." And because of that United States was primary led the war into action because it true motif was to gain control of Iraq's oil itself. Therefore, it was logic to assume United States was in the war and primary led the military force in the country hastily because it wanted to win the nation's oil. With this, United States companies would be first in line to win lucrative exploration and production contracts, displacing French, Russian and Chinese firms that had previously signed agreements with Iraq under Saddam. However, most Western analysts doubt the theory that "it's really all about oil." If the United States wanted to push down the global price of oil with the help of increased Iraqi supply, a quicker way to do it would be to end sanctions against Baghdad instead of going to war. Instead, its military buildup had the short-term effect of creating nervousness and uncertainty on world markets and pushing prices higher. Dave O'Reilly, Chairman and Executive Officer of Chevron Texaco Corporation stated that, "If it was a war for oil, we wouldn't have done it. Because if you look at the consequences - Iraq is now producing less oil, it's more unstable, it has led to disruptions in the market. Even today, nine months later, Iraq is producing - and I don't have firsthand knowledge - less than two-thirds of what it was producing before the war." Therefore, oil conspiracy theory looked overblown and does not support the reason why United States invaded Iraq in the first place which was to maintain the global peace.
As for the conclusion, the invasion of Iraq had lead to a lot of conspiracies and speculations. The issues that are most debated over the past few years were Iraq being a threat to the United States, Iraq possessed the weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and Iraq's oil as the reason for the United States to invade Iraq. Based on my research, I think the contradictions of the issues in Iraq invasion make more sense than the conformity of it. For example, if Iraq was such a big threat to the United States, why they only invaded it but left other countries such as North Korea and Iran that former President Bush labeled them as "Axis of Evil" because the threats they possessed against United States alone? One other thing was that why was United States really rushed in to invade Iraq even though there were no physical proves about the existence of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq at that time? Therefore, I think the invasion should not occur at all and it should be prevent from happening before it came to what it is now. United States should not be to hasten in involving in any war as war only brings destruction and death.