New Peril Old Adversary: George W Bush, 911, and Iraq Harvard Case Solution & Analysis

New Peril Old Adversary: George W Bush, 911, and Iraq Case Study Analysis

A study of the recent New Peril Old Adversary: George W Bush, 911, and Iraq, reveals the effects of the United States' military and economic policies on the country. The study, based on a PESTLE analysis, problem statement, financial analysis, and case study, suggests a number of recommendations. In addition to the analysis and recommendations, the article offers a discussion of how the United States should move forward in the wake of these events.

Problem Statement

The war in Iraq, also known as the "War on Terror", began in 2003, after the United States began implementing pressure on the Iraqi government to disarm its weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In response, the regime of Saddam Hussein was attacked by U.S. and British aircraft, which dropped thousands of bombs on the country. This was a significant event that sparked debate in the United States, and in the rest of the world.

The administration's decision to invade was based on the false premise that Saddam possessed WMDs. This is not the case, and the administration's claims were not backed up by any real evidence. However, the resulting war was unpopular in the U.S. and resentment against the US skyrocketed.

During the Bush Administration, the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was conflated with the threat of 9/11. At the time, the conflation was legal and morally justified. It was also a political strategy designed to sell the war to the public.

The Bush Administration used the word "preemption" to justify its actions against Iraq. Preemption refers to military action against a state that is expected to launch an attack in the near future.

While the doctrine of deterrence is still valid, it is not effective against non-state actors, such as terrorists, who use wanton destruction to target innocent people. Traditional concepts of deterrence do not apply to these types of threats.

Case Study Solution

Among the many decisions made by the Bush Administration, the decision to go to war with Iraq was the biggest one. The United States had a military presence in Kuwait since the Persian Gulf War, but had not crossed the border. As a result, Saddam Hussein's regime remained in power.

In the ensuing months, the situation in Iraq devolved into a bloodbath, with at least 120 Iraqis being killed each day by insurgents. For the most part, the United States was unprepared to do much of anything. Eventually, the American military did airlift 700 renegade troops into the Nasiriyah area of southern Iraq on April 6, 2003. However, the real question was if such an operation was actually successful.

The Bush Administration did not take advantage of the situation. Instead, it put Iraq on the back burner. While the Bush Administration did not play a major role in choosing the next leader of Iraq, it was willing to participate in the interim government, which eventually morphed into the present-day government.

The Bush administration also did not use a number of other important echelons, including the military, in their decision-making process. Some of the best ideas for the administration's burgeoning war in Iraq came from the military's own research and development branch. A few of the more interesting ideas included the deployment of the first mobile command post in the country, as well as the creation of the United States' most elite military unit, the United States Special Operations Command, or USASCO.

Porters Five Forces

The Porter's Five Forces model can be used to help you understand the competitive factors involved in the waging of war in Iraq. Aside from understanding the various factors in the context of the War, you can also find out how to use the model to understand the key drivers of profitability.

The best way to start off is by examining the main forces in play. This will help you identify the various competing factors, enabling you to choose the most suitable strategy for your own company.

The Porter's Five Forces model can help you assess the competitive strengths of your own company and your competitors. By analyzing the competition and implementing the right strategies, you can help ensure your business succeeds.

In the context of the waging of war in Iraq, the most important strategy is to avoid costly mistakes. There are numerous ways to do this, including utilizing R&D, avoiding overcrowded spaces, and choosing a premium price. For instance, you could offer merchandise such as fridges and pens. However, you should avoid risky experiences in unknown regions.

Another strategy to consider is the diversification strategy. The diversification strategy combines the advantages of brand recognition, brand awareness, and acquisition strategies to expand your portfolio and reach new customers. Also, leveraging your existing infrastructure allows you to explore new product opportunities in markets outside your traditional industry.

PESTLE Analysis

The PESTLE acronym stands for Political, Economic, Social, Technical, and Legal. It is an excellent way to see the big picture and make wise decisions. If you haven't heard of this acronym, it is the brainchild of a group of academics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Several of the professors have a penchant for using it to decipher the complex business landscape. Whether you're looking to start your own small business or simply make better informed investment decisions, the PESTLE acronym can provide some of the best advice.

This acronym is often used to analyze an organization's internal and external environment, but can also be utilized to understand your position within a larger ecosystem. By using the PESTLE acronym, you can gain an edge on the competition and make wiser choices. Using the PESTLE acronym will also tell you if a particular strategy is likely to work for you.

Financial Analysis

The Bush Administration's quest to remake the world is no doubt going to take a hefty chunk out of our wallets, but we can't help but feel a little good about the progress we have made over the past year. For example, the recent discovery of Iraq's oil fields has led to a newfound confidence in the country's military capabilities. Moreover, the Bush Administration has put the kibosh on a number of nefarious regional and subregional militias, giving the United States more wiggle room than it may have otherwise had. And the administration has been able to reclaim much of the territory lost to the Iraqi government during the recent Iraqi campaign. As for the nation's defense, the recent escalation has provided a welcome boost to the military and civilian academies alike.


In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States and the rest of the world began a war against terrorists. This new war aimed at deterring governments from providing terrorism support. The Bush administration, armed with powerful presidential powers, immediately attacked the enemy. It was the beginning of a war that is still going on.

The Bush Administration characterized Saddam Hussein's regime as a threat to the stability of the Middle East. They claimed that his regime was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and had the potential to transfer these WMDs to terrorist groups.

When the Iraqi government refused to comply with U.N. resolutions, the international community enacted sanctions. These resolutions were aimed at deterring Iraq from launching aggression and supporting terrorism. However, the Iraqi regime was not convinced. It refused to surrender its WMDs and did not comply with 17 Security Council resolutions.

After the attacks, President Bush responded with a decisive military victory in Afghanistan. He made a strong case for the overthrow of the Iraqi regime and for the expansion of democracy in the Middle East. He stated that overthrowing the regime would result in the end of support for terrorism and the spread of democracy.

While some members of the Bush administration felt that the regime should have been dismantled, others believed that it was not necessary. Bush also argued that the United States should be involved in the conflict.

This is just a sample partial case solution. Please place the order on the website to order your own originally done case solution.

Share This


Save Up To




Register now and save up to 30%.