Perez 1

Ernesto Perez

Dr. Briones

English 1301-160

16 October 2022

Public Perception and the Iraq War

Since its beginning in 2003, the Iraq War has been one of the most controversial wars

with people all over the world having differing opinions on the conflict. The justification of the

war tends to be the most debated topic with many thinking that the war should have never

happened at all. While the war was initially immensely popular with many Americans feeling

like the war was justified retribution for the 9/11 attacks in 2001. The US initially justified the

war by stating that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a supporter of Al-Qaeda and that it was

developing weapons of mass destruction. After the fall of the Saddam regime, these justifications

were found to be false with there being no connection to the Saddam regime and Al-Qaeda nor

were any weapons of mass destruction found. Furthermore, while Saddam Hussein’s regime was

toppled in 2003 and Saddam himself being executed in 2006, the war dragged on. It was not until

2011 that US troops withdrew from the nation. With the Saddam regime gone, the war shifted to

instead being an insurgency. As the occupation continued, American casualties only continued to

rise. Following the growing number of casualties, people began to question the morality of the

war and whether it was truly justified.

The initial support of the war came primarily with the 9/11 attacks, many Americans felt

a sense of anger towards the Arab world, and it was Iraq that took the brunt of this anger. Many

of those who supported the war sought to avenge the 9/11 attacks and much of this anger was

directed to Iraq and its identity as an Arab Muslim nation.

 Perez 2

Another viewpoint of the supporters of the Iraq war came from those who believed that

the United States had a moral obligation to change the Iraqi government into a more democratic

one. This was a view held primarily by neo-conservatives who viewed the United States as the

sole remaining superpower whose duty it was to protect universal American values. The toppling

of the Saddam regime was seen as morally just, as the spread of democracy was necessary.

Those who shared this view often sought to maintain the United States as the global hegemon

that it was and still is. Iraq was seen as a potential threat due to its large military and its large oil

reserves. These factors were seen as something that could potentially obstruct American interests

in the Middle East. The growing perceived threat of the Saddam regime along with its hostility to

the United States made many who had this view believe that a change of regime was necessary

in Iraq.

Those who support the war with much purer intentions would state that it was necessary

for the United States to topple Saddam’s regime for the people of Iraq to truly be free. There is

no debate that Saddam Hussein committed various atrocities to the people of Iraq. Many cheered

the fall of his regime as it paved way for a more democratic government to take over in Iraq.

Those who support the war in Iraq often point to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a positive

outcome of the war. Those who shared this view believed that the invasion of Iraq was necessary

to liberate the people of Iraq who had been oppressed by their authoritarian government.

While the Iraq war had its supporters, it most certainly had many people who opposed it.

Primarily people who opposed the war, did not see the war as justified. Many believed that the

war was primarily done so for imperialistic purposes and that the United States was invading a

sovereign nation that it had no reason to attack. These sentiments grew as the war dragged on

with many viewing it as a wasted effort. This was due to the rising casualties that the war had
 Perez 3

brought in which many in the public no longer saw the war as being worth it. This combined

with the growing cost of maintaining the war made it very unpopular in its later stages.

Furthermore, the initial justifications that the US government had provided of “weapons of mass

destruction” and the Saddam regime's connections to Al Qaeda were later found to be false. This

only led to further discontent in the public's perception of the war.

Of course, there is also the argument that the United States invaded Iraq purely for economic

reasons. With Iraq being a nation with such vast oil reserves, many believe that the United States

invaded Iraq with the intention of accessing these reserves. The toppling of Saddam’s regime

along with the occupation that followed would allow various American oil companies to gain

favorable contracts in Iraq, with one article stating, “it is much easier to persuade Iraqi officials

to sign contracts that are very lucrative for US companies when these officials are surrounded by

160,000 American troops” (1)

While many view the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime as a positive thing. There are

those who question whether the United States was truly justified in toppling his regime. While it

is true that he was a brutal dictator, this does not mean that it is morally justified for the United

States to overthrow his government and install a democracy in its place. Iraq was a sovereign

nation, and some argue that the United States had no right to invade a sovereign nation and to

depose its leadership regardless of how brutal that leadership may be. Furthermore, some would

argue that while toppling Saddam’s regime to punish his various human rights violations may be

a morally good thing, this was certainly not the reason for the invasion in Iraq. Prior to the Iraq

war, the United States was supportive of the Saddam regime even while being aware of the

multiple massacres happening at the time.

 Perez 4

Lastly, when discussing the moral justification of the war, the ideas of the “just war” are

often discussed in context to the Iraq war. Just war theory states that while it is wrong to wage

war, a government has a duty to defend its people from imminent threats. When applying this to

the Iraq war, many find believe that the United States was not justified in its invasion of Iraq.

Initially, this imminent threat to the United States was found in the WMD that Saddam’s regime

had been developing. When no WMD were found however, this hurt the justification of

imminent threat that the United States had developed in its reasoning. Following this logic, many

find that it was instead Saddam who was justified in defending Iraq from a foreign invader as a

sovereign state.

While the Iraq war was primarily seen as a conflict between the United States and Iraq,

the coalition was made up of various nations including The United Kingdom, Australia, and New

Zealand. Naturally, the people in these nations had their own opinions on the war with many

people supporting the war. Following the 9/11 attacks, there was a growing public fear of

terrorism in many nations. This growing fear was what encouraged many in other nations to

support the war in Iraq as it was seen as part of the war on terrorism.

Of course, not all nations were as supportive of the invasion of Iraq with even some

traditional American allies such as France opposing the war in Iraq. France is a notable nation

that opposed the war as it viewed the US justifications for the war as wrong.

In conclusion, despite US troops pulling out in 2011, the Iraq war continues to be one of

the most controversial wars in our nation's history. There are those who support it and those who

oppose it. The moral justifications of the war are hotly debated to this day and will continue to be

debated for years to come.

Perez 5
 Perez 6

Annotated Bibliography

Antic, Miljenko. “Iraq War (2003-): Was It Morally Justified?” Politička misao 46.1 (2009): 88–

113. Print.

The article provides a good amount of information about the morality of the Iraq war. It includes

various arguments that deem the Iraq war as morally unjust along with the argument that the

United States was not justified in its invasion of Iraq. It makes very logical points throughout the

article, and it provides ample evidence and reasoning for its arguments with the article focusing

primarily on the ethical and legal viewpoints in its arguments. The arguments found in the article

are useful as they offer views that are in opposition of the war in Iraq. The author of the article is

Miljenko Antić who is a professor at the University of Zagreb and has published various notable

articles in his career.

Becker, Per. “Vulnerability and Nationalism: The Support for the War Against Iraq in Five

Established States.” Nations and nationalism 15.2 (2009): 340–360. Web.

The article provides different viewpoints from five different nations on the support for the Iraq

war. The article focuses primarily on the US, Great Britain, Australia, France, and Spain and

how aggressive ideas are able to develop in these nations. It uses the Iraq war for its research and

the public support that it had early on. These nations were chosen as the article chooses to focus

on western developed nations that had some differing opinions of the war. The article takes note

of the support that the public had in these nations along with the roles that the governments took

in the war. The article also provides very good background information for the situations that
 Perez 7

these five nations found themselves in at the time. The article was written by Per Becker, who is

a professor at the University of Lund, giving the article its credibility.

Bieler, Andreas, and Adam David Morton. “Axis of Evil or Access to Diesel?: Spaces of New

Imperialism and the Iraq War.” Historical materialism: research in critical Marxist theory

23.2 (2015): 94–. Web.

The article attempts to explain the reason for the Iraq war as something that came from

capitalism and imperialism. The author seems very opinionated and has a communist bias, but it

serves as another viewpoint that can be utilized. The author connects the claim by analyzing

information and connecting it to various theories. The authors of the article are Andreas Bieler

and Adam David Morton, both are professors at the University of Nottingham and seem to be

knowledgeable in this area, making the source reliable. The source is useful as it provides

another viewpoint that differs from the previous sources.

Gelpi, Christopher, et al. “Success Matters: Casualty Sensitivity and the War in Iraq.”

International Security, vol. 30, no. 3, 2005, pp. 7–46. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137486. Accessed 6 Oct. 2022.

This article provides some detailed research into how the American public was able to support

the war despite the number of casualties. More importantly the author manages to measure and
 Perez 8

attribute the factors that affect how many casualties the public is willing to tolerate for there to

be support of the war. The article supports itself by finding a correlation between the number of

casualties in the war and the support that the public had for the war. The article’s data is useful as

it provides another view that people may have on the Iraq war, as casualties are something that

will usually lower the public support of a war.The author of the article is Christopher Gelpi who

is a well-known figure in political science and is a political science professor at Ohio State

University. This lends a good amount of credibility to the research from the article.

Klarevas, Louis J, Christopher Gelpi, and Jason Reifler. “Casualties, Polls, and the Iraq War.”

International security 31.2 (2006): 186–198. Web.

The article serves as a response to one of the other articles that I have used here, and it offers

more insight into the correlation between public support and the number of casualties from the

Iraq War. The author uses data from surveys to view the opinions of the public and this data is

connected to the hypothesis of the article. The author of the article is Louis J. Klarevas, who, as

the article states, is a clinical assistant professor at the University of New York. Along with this,

the author of the previous article, political scientist Christopher Gelpi is also credited in the

article, lending it even more credence.

Kull, Steven, Clay Ramsay, and Evan Lewis. “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War.”

Political science quarterly 118.4 (2003): 569–598. Web.

 Perez 9

The article provides a lot of information as to how the American public were able to accept the

Iraq war, despite much of the public having showed many reservations about the invasion. The

article uses a variety of polls to analyze the sudden shift in opinion that the public had. The

article provides a good amount of data, and it shows what exactly people who supported the war

thought about it. The study was conducted by various officials from PIPA, (Program of

International Policy Attitudes), and this lends much credibility to the article and its research.

Liberman, Peter, and Linda Skitka. “Vicarious Retribution in US Public Support for War Against

Iraq.” Security studies 28.2 (2019): 189–215. Web.

The main point of the author of this article is that many of the people who were in favor of the

Iraq war, viewed the nation in a belligerent manner as Iraq was associated with the Arab Muslim

world that many Americans viewed with hostility after the 9/11 attacks. The author uses a variety

of past research to make connections to the point throughout the article. The source provides a

good amount of insight into how Americans who supported the war felt about it, despite there

being no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. The article is written by various Peter

Lieberman, a political science professor for Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City

University of New York and is a very well-known researcher. This lends a great amount of

credibility to the article.

Masters, Daniel, and Robert M. Alexander. “Prospecting for War: 9/11 and Selling the Iraq

War.” Contemporary security policy 29.3 (2008): 434–452. Web.

 Perez 10

The article focuses primarily on foreign policy and uses the public support that people had for

the Iraq War to reach its point. The article connects the public’s response to the Iraq war by

using Prospect theory on foreign policy. The article makes the point that the people were far

more receptive to the war when there was the inflation of threat. In short, the article believes that

connecting the Saddam regime to terrorism and by increasing the public’s fear of terrorism, there

would be much more support for the war. The source is especially useful as it delves into the

psyche of what some supporters of the Iraq war may have thought when giving their support to

the war. The article is written by Daniel Masters and Robert M. Alexander and was published in

Contemporary Security Policy, giving the article some credibility.

Mral, Brigitte. “The Rhetorical State of Alert before the Iraq War 2003.” Nordicom review 27.1

(2006): 45–62. Web.

While the article may not give many accounts of public opinion, it certainly gives a great deal of

information about the tactics that the American government used to raise public support for the

Iraq war. Using this information is useful to understand more as to why some supported the Iraq

war. The article takes an analytical look at the rhetoric that was used by the American

government in order to justify the Iraq war to the American public. The author reaches her

conclusion by analyzing what the US government and media used to justify the war to the public.

The article was written by Brigitte Mral who is a professor of rhetoric at the University of
 Perez 11

Göttingen in Germany. Her expertise in this subject gives a good amount of credibility to the

article.

Porter, Elisabeth. “No Just War: Political Reflections on Australian Churches’ Condemnation of

the Iraq War.” The Australian journal of politics and history 52.3 (2006): 471–488. Web.

The article provides an analysis of three different reasonings that three different religious leaders

had for their opposition to the Iraq War. While the opinions in the article are not that of

Americans, they are still nonetheless good viewpoints, and the article provides a good analysis of

these viewpoints through the “just war” theory. The article is written by Elisabeth Porter who is a

professor at the University of South Australia. This gives the article and it’s research a good

amount of credibility in the subject.

Voeten, Erik, and Paul R. Brewer. “Public Opinion, the War in Iraq, and Presidential

Accountability.” The Journal of conflict resolution 50.6 (2006): 809–830. Web.

This article gives insight into how people hold leaders accountable for their decisions.

The author uses various surveys to take people’s opinions on the subject of the Iraq war. The

research in this article provides some good data on public opinion of the war in Iraq. The author

of the article is Erik Voeten, a political scientist who conducts much research in this field. The
 Perez 12

credentials of the author lend a good amount of credibility to the article.