WAR AGAINST IRAQ

  

Copyright © Philip M. Parker, INSEAD. Terms of Use.

WAR AGAINST IRAQ

Specialty Definition: 2003 invasion of Iraq

(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)

nds:Irakorlog

The 2003 invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003, when a large force of United States and British troops invaded Iraq, leading to the collapse of the Ba'athist Iraqi government in about three weeks and the start of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. Ground forces from Australia and Poland and naval forces from Denmark and Spain also took part. The international community was divided on the legitimacy of this invasion; see worldwide government positions on war on Iraq.

The start of hostilities came after the expiration of a 48-hour deadline which was set by U.S. President George W. Bush, demanding that Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq, ending the diplomatic Iraq disarmament crisis.

The U.S. name for the military campaign was Operation Enduring Freedom. The US military operations in this war were conducted under the name of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The UK military operations in this war were conducted under the name of Operation Telic. The Australian codename was Operation Falconer.

The United States, with support from approximately 45,000 British, 2,000 Australian and 200 Polish combat forces, entered Iraq primarily through their staging area in Kuwait. Coalition forces also supported Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000. Included in these forces were groups of Australia SAS and Commando Personnel who performed Recon and combat search and rescue mission along side American and British SF units.

Timeline of the invasion

See 2003 invasion of Iraq timeline for a detailed timeline

The invasion was notably swift, with the collapse of the Iraq government and the military of Iraq in about three weeks. The oil infrastructure of Iraq was rapidly secured with limited damage in that time. Securing the oil infrastructure was considered important in order to prevent Saddam Hussein's forces from destroying it (as happened in 1991, creating environmental and economic problems).

Casualties of the invading forces were limited, while Iraqi military and civilian casualties are unknown, probably at least in the thousands. A study from the Project on Defense Alternatives ( http://www.comw.org/pda/ ), a Boston-based think tank, numbered the Iraqi casualities between 11,000 and 15,000 ( http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0310rm8.pdf ), and the Iraq Body Count project numbered the civilian Iraqis injured in 20,000 ( http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_aug0703.htm ).

The U.S. Third Division moved westward and then northward through the desert toward Baghdad, while the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and a UK expeditionary force moved northward through marshland. UK forces secured Iraq's second-largest city, Basra, following two weeks of conflict, although their control of the city was limited. Preexisting electrical and water shortages continued through the conflict and looting began as Iraqi forces collapsed. While British forces began working with local Iraqi Police to enforce order, humanitarian aid began to arrive from ships landing in the port city of Umm Qasr and trucks entering the country through Kuwait.

Three weeks into the invasion U.S. forces moved into Baghdad with limited resistance, Iraqi government officials either disappeared or conceded defeat. Looting took place in the days following. It was alleged that many items in the National Museum of Iraq were amongst those things looted. The F.B.I. was soon called into Iraq to track down the stolen items. However, it has been found that the initial claims of looting of substantial portions of the collection were somewhat exaggerated. Yet, as some of the dust has settled, thousands of antiquities are still missing including 30 invaluable objects from the main collection.

There has been speculation that some objects still missing were not taken by looters after the war, but were taken by Saddam Hussein or his entourage before or during the fighting. There have also been reports that early looters had keys to vaults that held the more rare pieces and speculation of systematic removal of key artifacts. The arts and antiquities communities warned policymakers in advance of the need to secure the museums. Despite the looting being somewhat less bad than initially feared, the cultural loss of items from ancient Sumeria is significant. The accusation that US forces did not guard the museum because they were guarding the Ministry of Oil and Ministry of Interior is apparently true. The reality of the situation on the ground was that hospitals needed guarding, water plants needed guarding, and ministries with vital intelligence inside needed guarding. There were only enough US troops on the ground to guard a subset of everything that ideally needed guarding, and so some "hard choices" were made.

In the north Kurdish forces under the command of U.S. Special Forces captured oil-rich Kirkuk on April 10. On April 15, U.S. forces mostly took control of Tikrit.

As areas were secured, coalition troops began searching for the key members of Saddam Hussein's regime. These individuals were identified by a variety of means, most famously through sets of most wanted Iraqi playing cards.

George W. Bush announced, with great fanfare and a banner stating "Mission Accomplished", the end of major combat on May 1, 2003. However, this did not mean that peace returned to Iraq. The U.S.-led occupation of Iraq thereupon commenced, marked by ongoing violent conflict between the Iraqi and the occupying forces. As of Novermber 15, 2003, the total deaths of American soldiers in the Iraq war since march have reached 400. Of these the majority has been killed after the end of major hostilities on May 1. There is concern being voiced from domestic quarters comparing the situation to previous wars such as the Vietnam War.

The ongoing resistance in Iraq is concentrated in, but not limited to, an area known as the Sunni triangle and Baghdad [1]. Critics point out that the regions where violence is most common are also the most populated regions. This resistance may be described as guerilla warfare. The tactics used thus far include mortars, suicide bombers, roadside bombs, small arms fire, and RPGs, as well as purported sabotage against the oil infrastructure. There are also accusations about attacks toward the power and water infrastructure, but these are rather questionable in nature. In the only widely covered example of what some considered an attack on the power system, two US soldiers were killed, indicating that they may instead have been the target. In the purported attack against a water main, some witnesses reported seeing an explosion on the pipe, but US soldiers and repair crews on the scene stated that it did not appear to have been caused by an explosion.

There is evidence that some of the resistance is organized, perhaps by the fedayeen and other Saddam Hussein or Baath loyalists, religious radicals, Iraqis simply angered over the occupation, and foreign fighters. [1]

Events leading to the invasion

In September 2000, in the Rebuilding America's Defenses report [1], the Project for the New American Century planned an attack on Iraq, independently of whether or not Saddam Hussein remained in power. One year later, on the day of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is reported to have written in his notes, "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]". Shortly thereafter, the George W. Bush administration announced a War on Terrorism, accompanied by the doctrine of preemptive military action dubbed the Bush doctrine. In 2002 the Iraq disarmament crisis arose primarily as a diplomatic situation. In October 2002, the United States Congress granted President Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq. The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq was worded so as to encourage, but not require, UN Security Council approval for military action. In November 2002, United Nations actions regarding Iraq culminated in the unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the resumption of weapons inspections. The United States also began preparations for an invasion of Iraq, with a host of diplomatic, public relations and military preparations.

Payoff of Iraqi Military

Shortly after the sudden collapse of the defense of Baghdad, rumors were circulating in Iraq and elsewhere that there had been a deal struck (a "safqua") wherein the US had bribed key members of the Iraqi military elite and/or the Baath party itself to stand down. These rumors were ignored or treated dismissively in the US media and among the US public.

In late May, 2003, General Tommy Franks announced his retirement. Shortly thereafter, he confirmed in an interview with Defense Week that the US had paid Iraqi military leaders to defect. The extent of the defections and their effect on the war were not clear as of this writing (May 24, 2003).

Invasion justification and goals

The stated justification for the invasion included Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction, links with terrorist organizations and human rights violations in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government. To that end, the stated goals of the invasion, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were: to end the Saddam Hussein government and help Iraq transition to representative self-rule; to find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction and terrorists; to collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists; to end sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support; and to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources.

No weapons of mass destruction have been reported as found as of September 21, 2003, though Saddam Hussein's government collapsed, former Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas was captured, and the oil fields and resources were rapidly secured but have since suffered continued sabotage.

After the fall of Baghdad, U.S. officials claimed that Iraqi officials were being harbored in Syria, and several high-ranking Iraqis have since been detained after being expelled from Syria.

Support and opposition

See Support and opposition for the 2003 invasion of Iraq for the full article.

The Bush administration claimed that the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq included 49 nations, a group that was frequently referred to as the "coalition of the willing". These nations provided combat troops, support troops, and logistical support for the invasion. The nations contributing combat forces were, roughly: United States (250,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), Denmark (200), and Poland (54). Ten other countries were known to have offered small numbers of noncombat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination. In several of these countries a majority of the public was opposed to the war. In Spain polls reported at one time a 90% opposition to the war.

Popular opposition to war on Iraq led to global protests, and the war was criticized by Belgium, Russia, France, the People's Republic of China, Germany, and the Arab League.

There are some that claim the US intervention took place without any international legal framework. Others would counter by pointing out that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion gave legal authority to use "...all necessary means...", which is diplomatic code for going to war. This war ended with a cease fire instead of a permanent peace treaty. Their view was that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war. To support this stance, one has to "reactivate" the war resolution from 1991; if a war resolution can be reactivated ten years after the fact, it would imply that almost any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a ceasefire (such as Korea) could have the war restarted if any other nation felt at any time that they were no longer meeting the conditions of the cease fire that ended that war. Since the majority of the United Nations security council members (both permanent and rotating) did not support the attack, it appears that they viewed the attack as not being valid under the 1991 resolution.

However, a resolution drafted and accepted the year before the invasion fully endorsed the use of military action to force Iraq to comply with the United Nations desires, and every country that sat upon the Security Council voted to draft that resolution.

Several nations say the attack violated international law as a war of aggression since it lacked the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize military force. The Egyptian former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the intervention a violation of the UN charter.

The United States and United Kingdom claim it was a legal action which they were within their rights to undertake. Along with Poland and Australia, the invasion was supported by the governments of several European nations, including the Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Hungary, and Spain.

Many people regarded the attack on Iraq to be hypocritical, when other nations such as Israel are also in breach of UN resolutions and have nuclear weapons; this argument is controversial [1].

Although Iraq was known to have pursued an active nuclear weapons development program previously, as well tried to procure materials and equipment for their manufacture, these weapons and material have yet to be discovered. This casts doubt on some of the accusations against Iraq. However, some believe that the weapons were moved into Syria and Lebanon.

Related slogans and terms

This campaign has featured a variety of new and weighted terminology, much coined by the U.S. government and then repeated by the media. The name "Operation Iraqi Freedom", for example, expresses one viewpoint of the purpose of the invasion. Also notable was the exclusive usage of "regime" to refer to the Saddam Hussein government (see also regime change), and "death squads" to refer to fedayeen paramilitary forces. Members of the Hussein government were called by disparaging nicknames - e.g., "Chemical Ali" (Ali Hassan al-Majid), "Comical Ali" (Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf), "Mrs Anthrax" (Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash) - for propaganda purposes and because Western peoples are unfamiliar with Arabic names.

Other terminology introduced or popularized during the war include:

Media coverage

Media coverage of this war was different in certain ways from that of the Gulf War. The Pentagon established the policy of "embedding" reporters with military units. Viewers in the United States were able to watch U.S. tanks rolling into Baghdad live on television, with a split screen image of the Iraqi Minister of Information claiming that U.S. forces were not in the city. Many foreign observers of the media and especially the television coverage in the USA felt that it was excessively partisan and in some cases "gung-ho"

Another difference was the wide and independent coverage in the World Wide Web demonstrating that for web-surfers in rich countries and the elites in poorer countries, the internet has become mature as a medium, giving about half a billion people access to different versions of events.

However, the coverage itself was intrinsically biased by the fact that internet penetration in Iraq was already very weak (estimate of 12,000 users in Iraq in 2002 [1]), and the deliberate destruction of Iraqi telecommunication facilities by US forces made internet communication even more difficult. Different versions of truth by people who have equal ignorance of first-hand, raw data are by definition a very biased substitute for original, first-hand reports from people living locally.

Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based news network, which was formed in 1996, gained a lot of worldwide attention for its coverage of the war. Their broadcasts were popular in much of the Arab world, but also to some degree in western nations, with major American networks such as CNN and MSNBC re-broadcasting some of their coverage. Al-Jazeera was well-known for their graphic footage of civilian casualties, which American news media branded as overly sensationalistic. The English website of Al-Jazeera was brought down during the middle of the Iraq war by hackers who saw its coverage as casting a negative view on the American cause.

Iraq

War casualities

See also

External links and references

Top     


Iraq disarmament crisis

(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)

The issue of Iraq's disarmament reached a crisis in 2002-2003, following the US invasion of Afghanistan, when George W. Bush began pressing for a complete end to claimed Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction in compliance with United Nations actions regarding Iraq, began in 1991 following the Gulf War following years of detente since the Gulf War. Bush repeatedly indicated his willingness to invade Iraq, part of the so-called "Axis of Evil", if necessary (see US plan to invade Iraq). The Bush administration began a military buildup in the region and pushed for the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which brought weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei to Iraq.

Bush and Tony Blair met in the Portuguese Azores for an "emergency summit" over the weekend of March 15-16, after which Bush declared that "diplomacy had failed", and stated his intentions to use military force to attain to force Iraq to disarm in compliance with UN 1441. On Monday, March 17, 2003, in a televised announcement, Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraq: unless Saddam Hussein and his sons would depart from Iraq within 48 hours, US forces would forcefully remove them. For continued developments, see 2003 Iraq War.

Background

In the decade following the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations passed 16 Security Council resolutions calling for the elimination of Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction. The UN showed obvious frustration over the years that Iraq was not only failing to disarm, but was interfering with the work of weapons inspectors. Resolutions were passed and statements were released - at least once a year - calling for Iraq to disarm and fully cooperate with inspectors. On many occasions, Iraqi soldiers physically prevented weapons inspectors from doing their job and in at least one case, took documents away from the inspectors.

In 1998, US President Bill Clinton expressed concerns about Iraq's failure to disarm, noting that he believed the country would give its weapons of mass destruction to other countries. Clinton also stated his belief that Saddam Hussein would eventually use these weapons - it was "only a matter of time." On September 29, 1998, The United States Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which states that the U.S. intends to remove Saddam Hussein from office and replace the government with a democratic institution. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed by President Clinton on October 31, 1998. On the same day, Iraq announced it would no longer cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.

Clinton's plans to remove Hussein from power were put on hold when the U.N., under Kofi Annan, brokered a deal wherein Iraq would allow weapons inspectors back into the country. Iraq quit cooperating with the inspectors only days later and the inspectors left the country in December. (Inspectors would return the following year as part of The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic).

Paul Wolfowitz, the hawkish conservative military analyst for the Defense Department under Ronald Reagan, had formulated a new foreign policy with regard to Iraq and other "potential aggressor states", dismissing "containment" in favor of "preemption": Strike first to eliminate threats.

This was short lived, however, and Clinton, along with George H. W. Bush, Colin Powell, and other former Bush administration officials, dismissed calls for preemption in favor of continued containment. This was the policy of George W. Bush as well for his first several months in office. The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack brought to life Wolfowitz's and other hawks' advocacy for preemptive action; and Iraq was widely agreed to be a likely subject of this new policy. Powell has continued to support the philosophy behind containment; as a moderated degree of action, and it is his advice which President Bush has balanced with Wolfowitz's calls to action for a moderated approach, beginning with the US appeals to the UN which resulted in UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

During most of 2002 and into 2003, the United States government has called for "regime change" in Iraq and threatened to use military force to overthrow the Iraqi government unless Iraq rids itself of all weapons of mass destruction and convinces the UN that it has done so. See also Disarmament of Iraq.

US diplomatic pressure to bring Iraq to compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441, has created a diplomatic crisis in the UN, where some are in agreement with the US position, while others are dissenting; notably France, Germany, Belgium, China and Russia.

The US has given the following reasons for its seeking to force Iraq's compliance:

  1. That the government of Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, are anti-democratic and violate human rights - and has even been implicated in attempts at genocide.
  2. That the government of Iraq has failed to produce evidence of the destruction of caches of weapons of mass destruction, i.e. biological, chemical, as well as the existence of secret programs to produce nuclear weapons.
  3. That the government of Iraq has supported terrorist operations and groups, and is likely to supply them with weapons of mass destruction at some future point.

Several close allies of the U.S. (e.g. Germany, Belgium and France), although mainly sharing that estimation of the United States, oppose a military intervention because they claim that it will not decrease but increase the risk of terrorist attacks. Although the UK and governments of other members of the EU and NATO also support the US position, opinion polls show that in general their populations are against an attack, very much against without strong UN Security Council support. February 15, 2003, peace marches demonstrated the capacity of the peace movement to mobilize hundreds of thousands in the major cities of Europe, and almost as many in major cities of North America - which itself seems to be influencing the US position back towards the UN.

Issues of Concern

The serious concerns of war opponents arise in part from a fear of US hegemony (NATO nations with proportionately larger Muslim populations, e.g. France, Canada, disproportionately seem to have this view). However, most governments and US sympathizers state that their concern rises from the estimation that a military way of solving will foment more radical Islamism and terrorism, and question all borders in that region (especially in Kurdistan, a disputed region that demographically includes areas in Turkey, Iran and Syria as well as Iraq - see also the frequent wars between Arab nations in Middle East conflict). Perhaps most importantly it is thought to jeopardize all efforts of supporting nonviolent democratic Islam, led by moderates who are themselves generally against a war. For most war opponents, the American intention largely exceeds the fate of Iraqi disarmament. The relationship between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden appears forged for hiding other goals. Beyond disarmament, it is in Saudi Arabia that Bush is interested. It is in Riyadh that are the financial and strategic keys of the Middle-East.

These allies and movements prefer a diplomatic solution to disarm Iraq and support democratization in the region (similar to Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik in the 1970s which finally led to the peaceful revolutions in the Eastern Bloc in 1989).

Other opponents of the American invasion plan say that the US's reasons are selective and ultimately insufficient, pointing out that states that the US regards as friendly to it share some of these attributes. For example, Saudi Arabia is not a democracy and is closely connected to the terrorists who executed the attack on the WTC and The Pentagon. Also, Kuwait did not become a democracy with universal suffrage after the Gulf War. Many states have weapons of mass destruction, the US more than any other, and the US itself (they claim) has not only supported terrorist operations and groups, but also engaged in terrorism.

Although it has received only mild press attention, a March 6 report by the UN nuclear inspectors casts serious doubt on the existence and extent of a current Iraqi nuclear program. Invasion opponents find the fact that the incriminating documents were forged particularly concerning.

Many opponents of the plan also claim that some or all of the above claims are vastly misrepresented by the Bush administration, especially in the connection between Iraq and terrorist groups. Fundamentalist Muslim groups generally do not support Iraq, as it is a secular nation that does not enforce what they perceive as Muslim law dictated by the Koran - in a tape reputedly released by Osama bin Laden in February 2003 Saddam Hussein is referred to as an 'ignorant infidel' and placed only second on the list of evils, after an invasion by the United States - of course collaboration between them would likely result in just such a tape, and it is impossible to verify that such tapes do not come from the CIA, as is widely believed about all such evidence in the Arab world. In February of 1999, the Guardian newspaper detailed historical connections between Iraq and Al-Queda. [1]

Although G. W. Bush originally stated that existing resolutions were sufficient to justify the US launching a war, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, insisted that the UN must be involved, and it is widely believed that Colin Powell, US secretary of state, agreed strongly with this view, and that a new resolution was required.

The United States led the tumultuous effort within the United Nations to pass UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which called for sweeping new powers for weapons inspectors within Iraq and threatens "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply with the resolution. This measure has been successful, according to the peace faction, as Iraq has allowed inspections to continue (after a four-year hiatus) soon after the measure passed, and has responded in a timely fashion to concerns raised about it.

Others, including Colin Powell and Hans Blix, hold that Iraq has never complied fully with the terms of this resolution. Iraq was supposed to exhaustively list its existing weapons of mass destruction by December 8th 2002, and the inspectors would then confirm their existence and subsequent destruction. Inspection is not supposed to be a game of 'Hide and Seek', but a verification of disarmament, and inspectors are not trained as detectives, nor should the onus of proof fall upon them to find such weapons. Suspicion of withholding such evidence is enough to violate the terms of 1441. However, factions differ on whether 'serious consequences' are necessarily inclusive of an outright invasion of Iraq.

In February 2003 the effort to draft an 18th resolution in the UN Security Council was underway. It was influenced at least in part by a near-revolt inside the UK Labour Party, which has the power to remove Tony Blair as PM of the UK, and which has made clear that without another resolution, Blair is proceeding without the support of most of the UK's voting population, which is strongly against a war including only US and UK forces. Current events in this effort are dealt with further below.

Authority under International Law

The position under international law is unclear. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter forbids UN members from employing "the threat or use of force" against other states in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, but it does not explicitly require UN authorization for the use of force. The United States and Britain have said repeatedly that they are willing to invade Iraq with or without Security Council authorization.

Historically, there have only been two military actions carried out by any nation with the approval of the Security Council. These two instances were the Korean War and the Gulf War. Considering the number of military actions that have taken place worldwide since the UN's founding, there does not appear to be any well established international precedent respecting the Security Council.

The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of any international court over its citizens or military, holding that the United States Supreme Court is the final authority. One example of this policy is that the United States did not ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, and on May 6, 2002 it informed the UN that it has no intention to join the treaty.

As of February 10, 2003 neither Iraq nor the United States have ratified the ICC treaty, and therefore a US attack on Iraq would not fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. The actions of signatories such as the United Kingdom and Spain could however fall under the ICC jurisdiction.

On March 17, 2003, Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General of the UK, set out his government's legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that Security Council resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm. Although resolution 1441 had given Iraq a final chance to comply "it is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply".

The UK government made its case that Iraq had failed to disarm by releasing the September Dossier and the Dodgy Dossier.

Authority under US Constitution

The Constitution grants the power to declare war exclusively to Congress, but declares the President to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Because of this division of power, there has long been controversy regarding the authority of the President outside of a declared war. Nonetheless, of the hundreds of times the United States has exercised force outside its borders, only five have been as part of a declared war.

In 1973, amid increasing domestic controversy about the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of the president to undertake prolonged military action without Congressional authority. No president since has recognized the constitutionality of this act, and most legal scholars believe it would not survive a challenge in court.

To avoid initiating a crisis under the War Powers Resolution, the Bush Administration sought explicit approval from the Congress to exercise force in Iraq. On October 2, 2002, the Congress passed a joint resolution which explicitly authorized the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.

Iraqi opposition groups

Related article: Iraqi opposition group

In early August of 2002, US Vice President Dick Cheney met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition groups, pledging that the Bush Administration intended to replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic government. This pledge is viewed cynically by those who recall G. H. W. Bush's call for Iraqis to overthrow Saddam in 1991, which led to the murder of a large number of Shiites in Southern Iraq when US air forces held back and let Saddam's helicopters fly in the southern No-Fly Zone to defeat the uprising. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense in that first Bush administration.

Dick Cheney, in his role as Vice President of the United States, has taken the lead in advocating an invasion, maintaining that it is foolish to wait until Iraq has completed construction of a nuclear weapon. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay have also been vocal in urging an invasion. Colin Powell appeared to favor diplomatic engagement, until very recently (see below).

War on Terrorism

As part of its War on Terrorism, the President of the United States, George W. Bush, announced on September 4, 2002 the Bush Doctrine that the United States would launch a preemptive military strike at any nation that could put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, and had a right to do so. At the same time he stated he would seek congressional approval for a strike against Iraq, which he received shortly before the mid-term elections in November.

Continued at:

See Also

Iraqi Regular Army, military of Iraq, Iraqi Republican Guard, Hubbert peak

Further Reading

External links

Top     


Military preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq

(From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia)

By late 2002, following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, there was a steady flow of U.S. forces into the Gulf region. President Bush made a number of speeches linking the Iraqi regime to Al Qaeda or "Al Qaeda type" organisations, although little hard evidence was provided. By March 17, 2003, around 270,000 U.S. and British troops were in the region. The U.S. forces consisted of:

The planning for the invasion was remarkable for the relative openness of the debate. The main disagreement concerning tactics was between civilian Pentagon officials who preferred a military plan similar to the U.S. action in Afghanistan involving light forces and mobility, and military officers who preferred a variation of Desert Storm with intense air bombardment followed by a massive ground attack.

The resulting plan was a combination of both approaches. It was summarized in a classified document detailing military options, prepared for President Bush by American military planners. Military planning for an invasion focused on a short intensive bombing campaign followed by a land invasion by troops based in Kuwait.

The plan for the invasion proper called for a massive aerial bombardment to begin, possibly intended to produce a shock and awe effect. Unlike Desert Storm, the air war was planned to use a yet untested doctrine known as effects based air war. Instead of generally destroying targets, the air war was to focus primarily at targets whose destruction is time critical and aim at disrupting and paralyzing the Iraqi army rather than outright destruction of units. US military forces spoke extensively on this part of the war. The development of precision guided munitions, especially the JDAM series of munitions, changed American doctrine on an attack in Iraq. Targets were to be similar to those struck in 1991 - air defense radars, missiles, and command-and-control posts, power distribution, and the road network in Iraq - but JDAM munitions allow a greater degree of precision, and an ability to bomb through cloud cover. In addition, precision guided munitions are intended to reduce civilian casualties.

The U.S. government stated that if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons, it might be countered by American nuclear weapons, as per American military doctrine.

Military preparations

A classified document detailing military options for an invasion was prepared for President Bush by American military planners prior to his speech on September 12, 2002 at the United Nations calling for a UN Security Council resolution. Military planning for an invasion seems to focus on an intensive bombing campaign followed by a land invasion in the winter by troops based in Kuwait. Depending on the degree of international support, especially as reflected in a Security Council resolution additional resources may be available in Saudi Arabia, eastern Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and possibly Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. In the case of Qatar, despite being the site of an American base, the government has expressed its opposition to participating in an invasion although no actual request has been made of it by the United States.

Throughout late 2002 and early 2003, an increasing number of US and British troops have been flowing into bases in the area in preparation for action. Current estimates are 25,000 British and over 100,000 US troops.

United States Order of Battle

Units expected to be mobilized are:

In December 2002, the United States had one brigade, identified as the Third Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), 4,000 strong, involved in desert attack training in Operation DESERT SPRING. including 100 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks. The remainder of the 3rd Infantry Division has been mobilized and will leave Fort Stewart, Georgia, for Kuwait soon. In addition, the III Corps, from Fort Hood, Texas, which includes the 1st Cavalry Division and the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), are likely to be alerted.

Much of the United States Air Force was alerted to deploy overseas, including the 4th Fighter Wing from Seymour Johnson AFB, South Carolina; the 5th Bomb Wing, flying B-52H bombers, from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana; and additional units. Extra Air Force security squadrons were being sent from bases in Europe and the United States to the Gulf. Germany agreed to provide base security for U.S. Air Force in Europe bases within its borders; in the Continental United States, Army National Guard battalions are being called to active duty.

Three to four U.S. carrier battle groups remained in the Persian Gulf at one time. Each carrier carries 72 combat aircraft. As of December 2002, carriers were still rotated out to their homeports when new groups arrive.

The Coalition force was eventually expected to be 250,000 strong, half the size of the force used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Division commanders joined Lieutenant General William S. Wallace at U.S. Army V Corps Headquarters in Germany to take part in computerized exercises, called VICTORY SCRIMMAGE, to rehearse potential war plans.

Air Attack: The First Phase of the War

To some extent, the air war over Iraq began when the United States and Great Britain enforced "no-fly zones" over the north and the south of the country. The zones were imposed to prevent the Iraqi military from launching helicopter or aircraft strikes on Shi'a Muslim regions of the south, as Iraq did immediately after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and the Kurdish autonomous zone in the north of the country. The Iraqi government stated that the imposition of these zones is a violation of national sovereignty. Iraqi anti-aircraft units fired on U.S. and British aircraft; these two nations, in turn, responded with attacks on Iraqi defense sites.

The development of precision guided munitions, especially the Joint Direct Action Munition (JDAM) series of munitions, changed American doctrine on an attack in Iraq. Targets were similar to those struck in 1991 -- air defense radars, missiles, and command-and-control posts, power distribution, and the road network in Iraq -- but JDAM munitions allowed a greater degree of precision, and an ability to bomb through cloud cover.

B-2 Spirit bombers of the 509th Bomb Wing, from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, were moved to Diego Garcia, a British dependency in the Indian Ocean which is leased by the United States. The B-2s carry 2,000-pound precision-guided bombs. Each bomb can be guided individually by the Global Positioning System satellite system.

Wings of B-1 Lancer bombers and F-15 Eagle fighters were alerted for deployment.

Indeed the air strikes would seek a "Shock and Awe" effect, or saturation bombing, in order to prompt the Iraqi military toward surrender. This strategy would also address the possible use of chemical and biological weapons by Iraq.

Iraqi Defenses and Countermoves

The key units Iraq depended on to stop the Coalition were six Republican Guard divisions (strength: 85,000), two Special Republican Guard brigades, two Special Forces brigades (strength: 15,000), and internal security forces. The Iraqi Army was 300,000 strong.

See also 2003 invasion of Iraq

External links and references

Top     



INDEX

1. Bibliography


  

Copyright © Philip M. Parker, INSEAD. Terms of Use.