In 2003, the United States, heading a coalition of other nations, engaged in one of the longest and most controversial wars in its history since Vietnam. The Iraq War, a bloody conflict that dragged on for nearly nine years, has been the target of countless media inquiries and political questioning. Citing the poor U.S. strategy, or lack thereof, leading into the conflict, the absence of strong international support, and the faulty evidence upon which the casus belli was developed, opponents of the Iraq War are numerous. The more scholarly examinations, however, attempt to dissect the reasons why the Iraq war was launched, believing there to be legitimate reasoning behind the U.S. decision to ultimately wage war against another nation. Alexandre Debs and Nuno P. Monteiro, professors from Yale University, stand out amongst their peers in that they provide the most concise and realistic …show more content…
While correctly estimating the initial costs of invasion, they failed to foresee a governance of Iraq for years funded by the American people in addition to postwar reconstruction. Had the true costs of the war been anticipated, which, in today’s dollars, comes to $1.7 trillion, the possibility of invading Iraq to prevent nuclearization might not have been seen as something to be avoided at all costs. While rationalism offers a credible explanation as to why the invasion occurred, it does not take into account Iraq’s position in the matter. In the bargaining theory of war, both nations have potential gains and losses they would prefer to make to avoid war. While America’s gains and losses are made clear by Debs and Monteiro, only Lake takes into account what Iraq would be willing to give up. Hussein needed to appear strong to prevent civil war or an attack from his Iranian enemies. It was unlikely that he thoroughly considered what impact his propaganda might have on a paranoid