(Please note this is the 2nd Gulf War started by the son. The first Gulf War that you are studying in the text book Desert Storm was started by the father. The two wars are about 13 years apart. Do not be confused)Study the Background Information and the sources carefully, and then answer all the questions.
You may use any of the sources to help you answer the questions, in addition to those sources which you are told to use. In answering the questions you should use your knowledge of the topic to help you interpret and evaluate the sources.
Issue: Was the American Involvement in the Iraq War a Mistake?
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Iraq was suspected of developing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The US government claimed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Saddam Hussein, the President of Iraq, denied the allegation.
However, under pressure from U.S and the UN Security Council, Saddam Hussein allowed UN weapons inspectors into its capital Baghdad to conduct their inspections of weapon sites. The result of their investigation – there was no WMD in Iraq.
Unconvinced, the U.S government issued a warning to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face attack. Two days later, on 20 March 2003, U.S launched air attacks on Iraq even though it did not receive full support from the other UN Security Council members. War ended about three weeks later, after U.S. troops entered Baghdad and toppled the Hussein regime.
The US defence Department had planned to withdraw most of its troops by the end of 2003, but they soon found themselves tied up in a long-drawn guerrilla war with the Saddam loyalists.
To make matters worse, a civil war broke out between Iraq’s majority Shia Muslim population and its minority Sunni Muslim population. The chaotic situation in Iraq made it impossible for US troops to withdraw. By 2007, the number of U.S. death toll totaled about 30,000. Also, an estimated 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war.
It has been six years since the war started and it haunts the people like a never-ending nightmare. The U.S. war in Iraq had lasted even longer than U.S. involvement in
World War II. Was the American involvement in Iraq a mistake? The sources below give various views about the Iraq War.
1 (a) Study Source A What is the message of this cartoon? Explain your answer with reference to the cartoon. [5]
(b) Study Sources B and C
How different are these two sources? Explain your answer. [7]
(c)Study Source D
How reliable is this source about the threat posed by Iraq in 2002?
Explain your answer. [6]
(d) Study Source E
How useful is this source as evidence about the reactions of the Iraqis after the defeat of Saddam Hussein? Explain your answer. [7]
Source A: A Singaporean cartoonist expresses his view on the American Involvement in the Iraq War
Source B: A letter to the editor of newspaper, Las Vegas Sun, on 6 June 2008
When is our beloved country going to quit believing it can police this wide and wicked world with its limited forces and resources? When will this war end? As a World War II veteran and a high school teacher during the ’60s, I lost two of my best students to that hopeless Vietnam War. It made me weep to see their names on that Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.
Iraq War is in many ways, similar to the Vietnam War. While we are trying to save the free world from tyranny, our motives are misinterpreted and misguided. We were not in Vietnam or Iraq to conquer and subjugate a weaker country; we were not there to rob its wealth or take control of its resources. We were there for a good cause. I agree that all wars are a pointless waste of humanity, but sometimes we have no choice. Would you have allowed Hitler to rule the world?
Hats off and a hearty salute to those who are bearing the burden of this war! I think most people would agree with me that there are justifiable reason to go into a country and overthrow a regime that has brought so much injustice and human suffering.
Sources C: A British gave his views about the Iraq War in his blog
The Americans attacked Iraq because they claimed Iraq had WMDs and Saddam was refusing to let the UN inspectors check. They went there to save the Iraqis because Saddam and his family were committing genocide throughout the country. They are valid reasons. Now the Americans have got rid of Saddam and found no WMD. The question is: why are they still there?
People can argue that the country isn't stable, the soldiers are needed to see that the Iraqis don’t kill Iraqis. Personally, I think the U.S government had a plan for removing Saddam, but did not have a plan for afterward.
There are two separate groups of people in Iraq, the Shia Muslims and the Sunni Muslims. Now that Saddam is gone, who is in charge? There is no government, no military, and no police force and the "law of the jungle" took over. The U.S had to restore control, establish a government, a military, and a police department. At the same time terrorists are moving into Iraq like ants to a picnic. The U.S was not prepared for this and is now stuck in the sinking mud.
Source D: A speech by U.S President George Bush in January
2003
Our nation must prevent terrorists and regimes from threatening the United States and the world. This is an evil regime that used poison gas to murder thousands of its own people. It continues to show its hostility toward America and to support terrorism. It has plotted to develop biological and nuclear weapons for over a decade and has refused to let in the UN weapon experts to conduct inspection. Undoubtedly, Saddam has something to hide from the civilized world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, his government poses a grave and growing danger to world security.
Source E: A Malaysian journalist who was in Iraq during the American invasion of Iraq gave an account of the reaction of the Iraqis in October 2003
Groups of Iraqis started coming to show their support and joy at the end of the Saddam regime. Within an hour, the group had grown to between 300 and 500. An atmosphere of triumph and celebration could be felt in the fast growing crowd.
Then a man with a huge hammer started hacking away at the base of a huge Saddam statue. An American soldier fastened a chain over the statue and attached it to a U.S military vehicle. The vehicle pulled and almost effortlessly, the statue fell over. Men and boys raced forward and kicked, stepped and jumped on the statue as if it was Saddam himself.
Suggested Answer (Please look only after you have attempted the question)
Study Source A.
What is the message of this cartoon? Explain your answer with reference to the cartoon. [5]
(3 to 4 marks answers)
1. The US government took a dangerous path in launching an attack on Iraq
Evidence: The American man looks nervous and was perspiring profusely as he attempts to swallow the sword.
2. Invasion of Iraq may be easy but the problem is in the withdrawal. The American troops are not stuck in the middle of the civil war there and could not pull itself out.
Evidence: Iraq is portrayed as a sharp, jagged-edged sword. Once it goes down the throat, it is not possible to pull it out without injuring the man. The American showed fear and was perspiring while he swallowed the sword.
(4 to 5 marks answers)
The cartoon tells me that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a highly dangerous path taken by the US government. The cartoon shows a nervous American perspiring profusely as he swallowed the sword.
Although the US attack was swift and decisive, the American troops are now facing the problem of withdrawing from Iraq. This is evident in the cartoon as Iraq is portrayed as a sharp, jagged-edged sword. Once it goes down the throat, it is not possible to pull it out without injuring the man.
The cartoon was drawn with the purpose of mocking at the America’s decision to get itself entangled in the Iraq war. At the same time, the cartoonist is reminding the people that Iraq is a complicated country with many internal problems. Any attempt to meddle with it is courting trouble.
Study Sources B and C
How different are these two sources? Explain your answer. [7]
(4 to 5 marks)
The war veteran in Source B is ambivalent in his viewpoint on the Iraq War. He felt sad about the loss of lives in wars. This is shown in the phrase, “I lost two of my best students in the Vietnam war ….made me weep”. Nevertheless, he supports US action despite the loss of lives. He says “I agree that all wars are a pointless waste of humanity, but sometimes we have no choice.”
On the other hand, the British man in Source C is clear about his stand. He held negative viewpoint about US involvement in the Iraq War. He blames the US government for getting stuck in the Iraq War because “the U.S government had a plan for removing Saddam, but did not have a plan for afterward.”
(7 marks)
Source B, being an American citizen and a war veteran, he wants to show his support for his country’s decision to attack Iraq because Saddam “has brought so much injustice and human suffering”. However, as a former teacher, he wants to send out a message to the public that “all wars are a waste of humanity” but “sometimes wars are unavoidable.”
Source C has a different purpose. Writing in his Blog, he is free to speak his mind about the war. His purpose is to criticise the US government for starting the war and to show his unhappiness that his country, Britain, was also drawn into a war that was not carefully planned. The British says that “the U.S government had a plan for removing Saddam and his family, but did not have a plan for afterward. “
Study Source D
How reliable is this source about the threat posed by Iraq in 2002?
Explain your answer. [6]
L1/1 Reliability based on provenance
Yes, this source is reliable because it comes from the President of the United States.
L2/2 Reliability based on source content, no explanation
It is reliable because it says that Saddam has plotted to develop biological and nuclear weapons for over a decade and has refused to let in the UN weapon experts to conduct inspection. These Weapons of Mass Destruction will threaten the security of the whole world.
L3/3 Reliable OR unreliable based on cross-referencing to background information or other sources
Source D is reliable to say that the Saddam regime is posing a threat to the world because cross-reference to the background information also shows that “Iraq was suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)”
Source D is also reliable to say that Saddam murdered thousands of people using poison gas. This fact can be supported by Source C which says “Saddam and his family were committing genocide throughout the country”
OR
Source D is unreliable because there was no evidence to prove that Saddam supported terrorism. Moreover. it was also not true that Saddam refused to let the UN weapon experts to conduct inspection. Cross-refer to the background knowledge shows that “under pressure from U.S and the UN Security Council, Saddam Hussein allowed UN weapons inspectors into its capital Baghdad to conduct their inspections of weapon sites.”
L4/4 Reliable AND Unreliable (both elements of L3)
L4/5 Unreliable due to personal bias
Source D is unreliable because it contains biased opinion. President Bush made assumption that Iraq’s WMDs were used for terrorist activities. This was probably because President Bush was especially sensitive and cautious after the terrorist attack of New York’s World Trade Centre on 11 Sept 2001. His biased tone can be detected from his use of words such as, “threatening”, “hostility” and “murder”.
L5/6 Unreliable due to the purpose of the speaker
Source D is unreliable because President Bush spoke with the purpose of condemning the Saddam regime so that the Americans and the rest of the world would support his decision to launch attack on Iraq. He says, “Our nation must prevent terrorists and regimes from threatening the United States and the world.”
As the President had a hidden agenda when he spoke these words, the information given in the source is doubtful and unreliable.How useful is this source as evidence about the reactions of the Iraqis after the defeat of Saddam Hussein?
Explain your answer. [7]
L1/1 Useful - based on provenance – not explained
Yes, this source is useful because it comes from a Malaysian journalist who stayed in Iraq during the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
L2/2 Useful OR Not useful – based on provenance - explained
It is useful because it was an eye-witness account by a journalist who stayed in Iraq during the war. What he described was probably true because he saw it.
OR
It is not useful because the man was a Malaysian, not an Iraqi and he could not know the reaction of the Iraqis.
L3/3-4 Useful OR Not useful – based on content - explained
Yes, it gives a useful eye-witness account of the people’s reaction after the fall of Saddam. He saw a large crowd pulling down the statue of Saddam and then kicking and jumping on it. This account is useful as the description shows me that the people hated the dictator.
OR
No, it is not useful because the source only describe the reaction of one group of Iraqis and not all the Iraqis.
L4/5 Both elements of L3 – useful AND not useful based on content
L5/6-7 L4 + Useful and not useful – based on cross-reference to other sources
Source E is useful as evidence to show that the Iraqis hated the dictator, Saddam Hussein. Source E describes how the people celebrated and displayed great joy when Saddam was defeated. The fact that Saddam was a hated dictator can be proven with cross-reference to Source D which says that Saddam “used poison gas to murder thousands of its own people”. Therefore, the facts given by Source E are reliable. A reliable source is a useful source.
AND
Source E is not useful because the information given in the source is limited. It only shows the reaction of one group of Iraqis. Cross-reference to Source C tells me that there are two groups of Iraqis – the Shia Muslims and the Sunni Muslims. The Shia Muslims support Saddam whereas the Sunni Muslims hated him. What the Malaysian journalist saw were probably the Sunni Muslims who had been tortured under the Saddam regime. The reaction of the Shia Muslim would be different as they looked up to Saddam as their hero. They would probably be crying in despair that Saddam was gone. Therefore Source E is not useful in showing the reaction of the Iraqis because of the limited information given.
