Example Of Violence Never Brings Permanent Peace Argumentative Essay

WHO defines violence as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation. 1” The concept and existence of violence is not new and has been found from the time immemorial. There are countless examples illustrating the fact that Violence has been used by the people to manipulate things in their favor and as a way to employ own plans. The books of history are full with the use of violence to achieve the desired by the imperialistic forces against the weaker people, societies and nations.
On the other hand, ‘Peace’ is defined as the following: a) A state of tranquility or quite, b) freedom from civil disturbance, c) a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom, d) a state or period of mutual concord between governments, and e) a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity2. There are people who strongly disagree with the use of violence in any condition and advocate for the non violence to achieve the goals or implement the plans. People like Martin Luther king and Gandhi always followed the path of non violence irrespective of several problems they were caused to face in their life following their path or the principle of non violence.
War is necessary to establish peace in the society is what we have been hearing for a long time but there are a number of incidents that mock this conception. Many unreasonable wars and their outcomes thereafter, in the past two decades have proved that Violence never brings permanent peace, it solves no social problem but it merely creates new and more complicated ones as martin Luther king said while addressing the Nobel peace prize committee in the year of 1964. This paper discusses the attack of Iraq by the U.S. in the year 2003 and other related aspects of the episode like the reasons behind the attack and the outcomes. This paper further discusses how violence method failed to solve the condition of the Iraq.3

The reasons behind the attack on the Iraq

United States of America and its allied forces claimed that Iraq under the Saddam Husain has a massive storage of weapons of mass destruction or WMD. They repeatedly stated that Iraq does not only possess the weapons of mass destruction but also is engaged in the making and thus causing an imminent danger to other countries.
Iraqi authorities as instructed by the Saddam Husain did not co-operate the team sent by United Nations special commission UNSCOM to inspect the weapon of mass destruction. The team was called back by the united nation and US president George bush expressed his concern over the issue and named Iraq as a part of axis of evil.4
Further US and Britain moved a proposal to attack on the Iraq in the United Nations Security Council in the year 2003 but countries like Russia, Germany, France and almost all the countries of the Arab region opposed the move. On the other hand America and Britain were in hurry and without any consent on the proposal, they attacked the Iraq. President Bush quoted while sending the troops to the Iraq “no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.5”
After the terror attack of 9/11 on the America, George bush had declared the war against terror. The Americans were utterly angry and to pacify their anger, the bush administration designed the attack of Iraq. The story of weapon of mass destruction and the past history of Iraqi attacks on the neighboring countries provided an extra reason to attack on the Iraq.
There are several other reasons as mentioned by the several intellectuals and strategists behind the attack on the Iraq by the US and Britain. They bring up the massive oil storage, American imperialism and serving the need of the dominant capital as the reasons of the attack on the Iraq.6
The scholars blame the imperialistic policies of the United States and Britain for the attack on the Iraq.7 Further they say that the traders of these countries were hungry for the oil reservoirs of Iraq and they influenced the Bush administration to attack on the Iraq.8
Finally a set of above mentioned reasons caused the attack on the Iraq in the march of the year 2003. The troops of United States and Britain attacked the Iraqi land in a fully fledged and officially declared war.

The attack on the Iraq

The American and British forces attacked Iraq on march19th of the year 2003. The security forces of America entered into the capital Baghdad within three weeks of the attack. Thousands of lives including civilians and security forces gone and on may1st of the year 2003, American president declared that the war against Iraq is over.9

Outcome of the attack

The War was over but the social turbulence and several other concerns that were predicted before the commencement of this war by the international media and the countries that not supported the attack were validated. The insurgency of Sunni Muslims that took place during the war, worsened after the end of the war and Iraq was trapped into vortex of several disorders. The society and nation entered into the era of anarchy as no political party gaining majority mandate. The incidents of bomb blast became very common in the contemporary situation; a report of United Nations suggests that 34000 people were died in the incidents of bomb blast in the year 2006 alone.10
The story of WMD was never unveiled because the alleged weapons were never recovered. Saddam was executed by Americans in the year 2006 after he was caught from a hidey-hole. American troops started leaving the Iraq and according to a pact between the Iraqi parliament and the America, US forces will completely vacate Iraq by the year 2011.

The attack on the Iraq was completely futile

The truth behind the reasons given by the bush administration to attack the Iraq was revealed after the war. Here we would take a look at the reasons behind the attack on the Iraq, as given by the Bush administration and assess to what extent they were accomplished.
Destructing the weapons of mass destruction was a major reason to attack Iraq, as disclosed by the bush administration.11 “We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. They are around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat” – Donald Rumsfeld. 12 American secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld had made this statement before the commencement of the attack on the Iraq but when the war was declared over by the bush administration, the alleged weapons of mass destruction were not recovered. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in an interview revealed “The truth is that, for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason to go to war.13”
Once this major reason was exposed, it raised doubts in the countries of Arab world, members of the United Nations Security Council and among other countries of the world about the real reasons and intentions of US.
War against Terror was one more reason to attack Iraq as told by the Bush administration. “Stuff happens! Freedom's untidy and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things, and that's what's going to happen here14” said Donald Rumsfeld when a question was put up about the growing insurgency, the incidents of violent mutual fighting in the society of the Iraq and escalating number of bomb blasts.
Before attacking the Iraq, Bush administration told that after this attack, world would turn into a peaceful place and no one would dare to repeat the incidents of terrorist activities like 9/11. However a research report stated that the terrorist activities increased by 600 percent after the attack on the Iraq across the world.15
Freedom of the people of Iraq from the tyrant Saddam Husain was a fantasy that was shown to the US as a result of the attack. President Bush accepted in the year 2004 for the first time that ''miscalculation of what the conditions would be'' in postwar Iraq had been portrayed though the reality was very soon exposed16. At a later stage, it was revealed that the intelligence reports of CIA and other agencies were ignored by the Bush administration in which it was told that the conditions in the Iraq may Iraq may deteriorate and the disorders may drive Iraq towards state of anarchism. All the predictions were turned out to be true and the Iraqis were though free from the rule of Saddam Husain but were trapped in a triangle of terrorist attacks, foreign vigilance and the social turbulences.17

The effect of this war on the Iraq

The US president Bush claimed that the life of the Iraqi people has been improved when compare it to the time of Saddam Husain. "Despite many challenges, life for the Iraqi people is a world away from the cruelty and corruption18” George Bush stated.
The war proved to be a disastrous for the people of Iraq all the senses. The declination in the standard of the people was reported. Government was thinking to compensate the losses which occurred during the war by imposing new taxes. The condition of the basic facilities for the human life remained the same even after five years of the attack and even worsened. A large number of Iraqi houses were also damaged in the air attacks and the bomb blasts leaving their owners in a quandary. The condition of Electricity and drinking water was the same as it was during the reign of Saddam or before and even after years the situation was not improved as it was claimed to be improved.
Apart from the abovementioned situation, the biggest drawback was seen as the society was torn apart and several communities became confrontational mutually. A proper system of the government was not in the effect and several groups started operating to fulfill their vested interests. The life of a common man became difficult as the condition of law and order was severely deteriorated. In the incidents of bomb blasts and clash between communities, thousands of people lost their lives. The Iraq is still suffering from the memories and effects of the war.

Conclusion

Violence or the war to establish peace or to achieve any goal has always been proved to be very short term success. It has been proved by the life and actions of the people like Gandhi and Martin Luther king that big and sustainable goals can be achieved through peaceful actions and not by use of violence. These common people have achieved some remarkable successes in their life by following the path of peaceful resolution and succeeded in improving the situation of millions of people. 19
Arundhati Roy, the Booker recipient says “People rarely win wars, governments rarely lose them. People get killed. Governments molt and regroup, hydra-headed. They first use flags to shrink-wrap peoples' minds and suffocate real thought, and then as ceremonial shrouds to cloak the mangled corpses of the willing dead. 20” The war of Iraq has again proved that violence can not provide the long ending solutions. Iraq has come out from the reign of Saddam Husain but the situation of Iraqis has not improved. They are still facing a number of serious problems and all the claims of the US have been proved to be wrong.21
The idea of peace or non violence as advocated by martin Luther king is an appropriate example that fits in the scenario of contemporary Iraq. The ideas of peace, patience and tolerance have helped martin Luther king in achieving the goals that were otherwise not possible to achieve. The path of peace or non violence made him winning the support of millions and finally he succeeded in his demands for the equal rights for the African American people. If we apply his principles in the scenario of Iraq and analyze the current ongoing situations in many countries, it is not very difficult to imagine that the people would have revolt against the autocratic acts of the Saddam.
The only resolution that could have solved the knotty situation in the Iraq is the peaceful resolution. Instead of attacking the Iraq and letting the Iraqis in the state of fracas, the peaceful efforts to solve the situation should have been made. Peaceful resolution is something that believes in the methods of peace and non violence instead of violent acts. Peaceful resolution is a tested trusted method that has succeeded in solving a number of social problems in many societies and countries.22

Works Cited

Andrews, David M. The Atlantic alliance under stress: US-European relations after Iraq. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Beverley Milton-Edwards and Peter Hinchcliffe. Conflicts in the Middle East since 1945 . London: Routledge, 2008.
Branigin, William. "Bush Says 'Life Improving' in Iraq." 1 May 2004. www.washingtonpost.com. 14 November 2011