Perez 1

Ernesto Perez

Dr. Briones

English 1301-160

20 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 just about everyone having a different opinion on the conflict. The justification for the war

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

at all. The war was initially immensely popular, with many Americans having felt it 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 no connection between the Saddam regime and Al-Qaeda, and no weapons of mass

destruction found. Furthermore, while Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled in 2003 and

Saddam himself was 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 conflict shifted to instead being an

insurgency. As the occupation continued, American casualties only continued to rise. Following

the growing number of deaths, 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, 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. A good portion of Americans admit this to be true
 Perez 2

with one study finding that, “Many citizens who said Iraq had not been involved in 9/11

nonetheless acknowledged feeling that war would satisfy their desire to avenge the attacks,”

(Liberman, 190.) This search for retribution is something that many cited as the reason for their

support of the war

In the initial months of the conflict, a good majority of Americans were convinced that

the state of Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States, with some polls

finding that up to sixty-eight percent of Americans believing that Iraq had a substantial role in

the 9/11 attacks. (Kull, 572.) Furthermore, prior to the war, a good portion of Americans

believed that the state of Iraq possessed WMD’s, with polling data showing that up to twenty-

two percent believing that Iraq used WMD’s in the Iraq war. (Kull, 573.) According to some, it

is highly likely that the fear that the Bush administration distributed through its rhetoric was

what made many Americans such avid supporters of the war with one study noting that “Feelings

of insecurity stimulate a number of emotional responses among people that affect their

evaluation of policy options and risk orientations. In general, individuals display belligerence in

the face of terrorist attacks,” (Masters, 441.) The rhetoric of the Bush administration is also

notable as it needed support for a war in which the United States could be seen as an aggressor.

"In order to justify this, leaders have always made major rhetorical efforts to convince the public

of the justness of war, and the Iraq War is no exception,” statements like the previous are used to

show how the United States may have needed to justify the war. (Mral, 46.) Furthermore, the

rhetoric of the Bush administration heightened the public’s fear of terrorism with one article

stating, “Since 9/11 the international community has felt the heightened threat and reality of

terrorism.” (Porter, No Just War, 475.)

 Perez 3

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 view was 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 with one statement summarizing this view with “this regime change in Iraq was a

necessity. It was necessary for the people of Iraq, it was necessary for peace in the Middle

East..., and it was necessary in order to challenge an Arab culture warped by irresponsibility,

authoritarian brutality, rage and self-delusion – out of which had emerged, among other things,

contemporary Jihadism.” (Antic, 91.)

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.
 Perez 4

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

brought in which many in the public no longer saw the war as being worth it. Many Americans

then began to disapprove of the war as one study noted that, “Beginning in the spring of 2005,

however, we found that casualties began to erode presidential approval once again.” (Klarevas,

Casualties, Polls, and the Iraq War, 195.) This combined with the growing cost of maintaining

the war made it very unpopular in its later stages with one statistic showing, “in April 2003 at the

height of “major combat operations,” 76 percent of the public approved of President Bush’s

handling of the war; by the time of the U.S. election in November 2004, that number had

dropped to 47 percent; a year later, it had dropped below 35 percent,” (Gelpi, Success Matters,

9.)

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” (Antic, 100.) Another article also stating,

“It is then also clear that the invasion of Iraq was mainly about maintaining an open international

market for oil,” (Bieler, Axis of evil or access to diesel?, 103.)

 Perez 5

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.

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, with one article stating, “Many politicians played a negative role in one period of

their career, and a positive role in different circumstances,” (Antic, 93.)

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
 Perez 6

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

continue to be debated for years to come.

 Perez 7

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.

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
 Perez 8

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

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.

 Perez 9

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.

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.

 Perez 10

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.

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.

 Perez 11

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

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
 Perez 12

professor at the University of South Australia. This gives the article and its 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

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