Women have made moves into politics and have proved effective as pressure groups and campaigners (female support proved decisive in the opposition to Resolution 137 in 2004, which would have introduced a more conservative interpretation of Sharia law) but female employment has declined since the invasion as concerns for their security have forced them to avoid work and women have faced disproportionate job loss as a result of privatisation of state-owned enterprises.
Perhaps the biggest shock is that the removal of the Hussein regime has led to widespread oppression of women, who are being increasingly harassed and assaulted by Islamist militias that roam the streets and kidnapped and sexually assaulted by criminal gangs, who sometime kidnap Iraqi women for trafficking.
The war has also created an unstable, dangerous and turbulent Iraq and, as will be explained later, the war has shifted the middle-eastern balance of power and has destabilised the entire region. Another element of the US’ plan to protect itself was based on the belief that undemocratic and dictatorial regimes create conditions that enable the growth of terrorist groups, are prone to war, and create tension and conflict internationally.
Liberal democracy, they argued, is a much more peaceful form of government.
The Neo-conservatives that had a large influence over the Bush Administration’s foreign policy argue that democracies rarely, if ever, fight one another or experience civil war or internal conflict. This democratic peace exists because, according to liberals and neo-conservatives, because the decision to go to war is made by a government that is directly accountable to the people, and it is the people who feel the consequences of warfare.
Those who live under democratic governments are risk averse and cost sensitive and so are reluctant to agree to or support the decision to go to war.of March, the United States began military strikes on Iraq with four satellite guided 2,000 pound ‘bunker buster’ bombs being dropped along with nearly forty Tomahawk cruise missiles being launched. Though it was not formally declared until the next day, this was the beginning of the US-led Iraq War.This essay will analyse the primary aims and objectives that the US tried to achieve in its invasion and will evaluate the degree of success that America had in carrying out its plans.The plan for the security of American oil resources will be analysed.As each of these objectives and aims are discussed, the essay will evaluate their successes and failures, which will then be summarised and put together in order to determine in which ways America was successful in Iraq, and in what ways the US-led coalition failed to meet its targets as well as the possibility of their aims being met in the future.However, they argue that should Iraq become a ‘dim democratic beacon’ it would have the opposite consequences as it would ‘increase their own conflict propensity, as well as the war-proneness of neighbouring states’ which would undermine the peace and prosperity of neighbouring nations. Having gathered statistical data on past externally imposed democracies they argue that even if Iraq became a bright beacon, democracy would be unlikely to spread, and they also argue that it is unlikely for Iraq to become a bright beacon due to the ethnic and religious conflicts tension in Iraq, the near absence of a democratic tradition, the impact of US occupation and the potential hostility of Iraq’s neighbours.They also argue that should Iraq become a dim beacon, it would undermine, rather than enhance regional democratisation. However, the true results of the democratisation process are yet to be seen as though there have been setbacks and challenges, Iraq has had successful democratic elections since the invasion, but time may be the only test of whether democracy will hold in Iraq and whether regional democratisation and peace will follow.In this respect, removing the dictator from power the war was clearly a humanitarian victory.However the invasion and subsequent occupation as well as the insurgency and internal conflict have claimed the lives of between 95,700 and 104,400 civilians. Professor Gareth Stansfield argues that ‘things are far worse as a result of the war… There was no sectarian violence; no gross levels of violence.Hussein was in no position to pose any serious threat to the United States; there were no WMDs in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein’s regime had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda terrorist network.In actuality, the invasion may have actually increased the danger faced by America as it has increased the anti-American sentiment and radical Islamist movements in Iraq and the Middle-East as the invasions could be viewed as a new form of imperialism and the number of civilian deaths and the grotesque treatment of prisoners in cases such as Abu Graib have severely damaged American support.