The epistemic violence in the 2003 war on Iraq

In March 2003, the United States and its allies initiated a war on Iraq, resulting in the occupation of the country and approximately half a million deaths. Many intellectuals, including some Iraqi exiles in the United States, alongside the American administration, advisors, and press, provided moral arguments to justify the invasion of Iraq. This dissertation examines the epistemic violence that manifested through the manipulation and distortion of knowledge, information, and discourse to rationalize and sustain political violence. The study is structured around three critical axes, examining how the portrayal of Baghdad as a strategic military target contributed to its destruction, depicting Iraq as a mosaic of conflicting sects and ethnicities entrenched divisions among the Iraqi population, perpetuating ethno-sectarian violence and undermining mutual comprehension between communities, and analyzing the narrative of Iraq as a colonial construct lacking true sovereignty, justifying its deconstruction and the denial of its legitimacy as a nation-state in the international law arena. It illuminates how epistemic violence—through constructed narratives and discourse—preceded, accompanied, and prolonged the physical violence inflicted upon Iraq, shaping realities, justifying war, and instigating deep societal divides. Hence, today, undoubtedly, the questioning of the rules-based international order or international law is not unrelated to this violence in the invasion of Iraq.