Iraq War
- For other uses, see Iraq war (disambiguation)
The Iraq War or War in IraqTemplate:Fn,Template:Fn is both an informal and a formal American term for the military conflict in Iraq including the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by the United States and United Kingdom, and subsequent liberation by US, UK and other forces.Template:Fn
Terminology
Variance in the use of the 'Iraq war' term can be traced to basic differences in the operative definition for 'war' and 'occupation'; as well as the understanding of 'political authority' and 'sovereignty'. For instance, the United States never formally declared war on Iraq (which under the U.S. Constitution could only be done by Congress; the last time that Congress made a formal declaration of war was for World War II). In international law[1] however, an ultimatum is considered equal to a proper declaration. Formal declaration or not, Iraq was nevertheless invaded by U.S. military forces. The term Iraq war is often left uncapitalized to indicate the legal informality and the lack of clarity in distinguishing among various operations and violent episodes. Further definition of the term varies with usage and point of view; hence, depending on the context, the term 'Iraq War' or 'Iraq war' may refer to hostilities in Iraq that fit one of two general contexts: Multinational force in Iraq multinational forces"Template:Fn invasion of March 2003, and the three-week period of full-scale military hostilities between the multinational forces against the established, uniformed military forces (that is, Saddam Hussein's "old" Iraqi Army). According to this view, the "War" ended with the "cessation of major hostilities" between established military forces. Alternatively, if the term includes the subsequent military occupation of Iraq, the "War" ended with the ceremonial handover of sovereignty to the new Iraqi government in June 2004. Though Coalition military officials have used the capitalized phrase Iraq War in this relatively narrow sense, they, and those politically in support of the invasion and current military presence (or 'occupation') also consistently use the terms Iraq war and 'war in Iraq. A derivative of this viewpoint sees much of the current violence almost exclusively as expressions of the Iraqi sectarian divisions, and characterize the occupation as democratic, and preventative of a larger civil war.
War rationales and debates
The more exclusive definitions of the "Iraq War" term (ie. the operations delimited to major hostilities against the Saddam Hussein government of Iraq and limited to the 2003 invasion and the succeeding period of military occupation) rest on rationalisations which tend to disagree, in various opinions, with direct or meaningful comparisons with other conflicts, though these are largely found in stated (or perceived) goals by the Coalition for the invasion and occupation. A better metric to determine precisely who the war is being waged upon should compare the number of civilian Iraqi deaths with the number of Iraqi soldiers killed in the first year of the war. Because the United States has made no effort to estimate civilian casualities, the estimates vary considerably.
In contrast, individuals that believe that the "Iraq war" is a continuing conflict base their concept of "war" and "occupation" on more general concepts, as opposed to the definitions of the United Nations, International law, military laws, or political techniques for using language effectively. Being dominantly driven by the United States various critics' eyes, the conflict is characterized by a large and dominant U.S. military presence in a foreign country. To many critics, the Iraq War has numerous parallels with past wars (in particular the Vietnam War). Opponents of the war often hold that the current insurgency conflicts are a direct consequence of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation. They hold to concepts defined largely by lessons learned from American involvement in Southeast Asia.
Both critics and supporters of the war have disagreed about the validity of the rationales, and over whether the ex post facto failure to find weapons "stockpiles" indicates the destruction or transportation of such weapons prior to the war or failure of intelligence (or, by some, deliberate deceit). The failure of western intelligence to distinguish between these two possibilities is perceived by some as a failure of intelligence. As stated in public speakings such goals have changed notably since 2002, and views differ as to whether past statements should be considered "failed goals" (or "deceptive premises") for the war.
- Related topic: Rationales of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq
War justifications
Pretexts of the invasion and occupation as stated by the United States in 2002 before the Iraq invasion are likewise controversial factors. Over time, these have varied. The first calls for war on Iraq came from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the American Enterprise Institute, with arguments based largely on the disruption of the emerging modernizing Islamic Middle East, and the project of American influence into the next century. These reasons were not those originally given (before the 2003 Iraq invasion) by the Bush administration of the United States before or after the initiation of the war, which instead included:
- The Hussein's regime was in violation of United Nations demands for weapons inspections. The reason was however obviated by the Bush administration itself, who set a deadline while inspectors were active in Iraq.
- Hussein's regime produced and possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the U.S.
- Iraqi government had failed to comply with 19 UN resolutions requiring a full accounting of its weapons of mass destruction and full cooperation with UN inspections.[2][3].
- That the Hussein's regime had ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that posed a threat to international safety;[4]; and,
- promoting democratic self-government in the nearly-entirely autocratic Arab Middle East.
Leaders of the multinational coalition have also pointed to human rights issues to justify the war. Saddam's regime's abuse of Iraqi citizens' human rights and the spread of democracy was cited, as articulated in US President George W. Bush 2003 State of the Union Address:
- "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages — leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation." [5]
Proponents of the war
Proponents of the war say that "we should fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."[citation needed] Others have pointed out that the terrorists are losing in Iraq (as exposed in Dr. Zawahiri’s intercepted letters). Some also posit that since the United States military has not lost a single battle, the multinational forces have removed a dictatorship, and the foundation for a new democracy in the Middle East has been set down. [6]
Criticisms of the war
According to opinion polls, the war was unpopular from its beginning in many Coalition countries. The war's unpopularity was reflected in widespread protests, including allegedly the largest worldwide protest in human history on February 15th, 2003 (eg., a day of Global protests against war in Iraq). The Iraq War was widely viewed by many critics as counterproductive. Many viewed the war as improper (being a moral and ethical violation) and illegal under international law. By the summer of 2005, there was an increase in the number of individuals in the United States who felt the same way.
Since the October 2005 indictment of Lewis Libby, politicians (including some of those who saw the same intelligence that was classified and used by the executive branch in America) and some citizens have begun to question pre-war intelligence and how it may have been misused in order to "sell", in their opinion, a war to the American people.[7] On the Senate floor during speeches, it was stated that,
- "President Bush exaggerated the threat to the American people. It was not subtle. It was not nuanced. It was pure, unadulterated fear-mongering!" Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) [November 10, 2005]
Antiwar rationales
The opponents to the wars' main rationales are, in their opinion, the "fixed intelligence" and "lack of connection to 9/11". Antiwar activists and opponents of the war draw direct parallels to the earlier actions (especially the Vietnam War) via several debated elements of evidence. This includes:
- its protracted nature, being defined by the continued dominant presence of coalition soldiers (in particular, United States units),
- the previous changing status of the local government,
- the sectarian factionalism,
- changes and conflicts in the publicly stated goals of the war and later occupation,
- the colonialist character of the occupation (i.e. "colonize the government", blanket and unconditional diplomatic immunity for soldiers, etc.),
- evidence of local activity of paramilitary and militant groups (commonly known as the "insurgency" and, at other times, the "resistance"), political dissidence, and non-violent protests,
- lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction,
- evidence of war crimes (eg., Abu Ghraib, indiscriminate bombing, extra-judicial killings, intentional targeting of civilians, etc.), and
- evidence of fraud, incompetence, and inefficiency of the "reconstruction" (eg., Halliburton, reused MREs, etc.),
among other evidence that they believe connects this war to previous military actions.
Critics have cited that, economically, the various engagements in Iraq has cost the United States about USD $200,000,000,000, and still costs about USD $6,000,000,000 a month. [8] , with exceptionally poor accounting of how the funds are being spent. Concern is growing that corporations with ties to the Bush administration, notably Halliburton, which was provided no-bid contracts that many considered illegal due to their size, to be the primary beneficiaries of the execution of the war.
Countries against
The following countries' governments did not support the War of Iraq:
|
|
|
Iraq Survey Group findings
In October 2003, the Iraq Survey Group released the report of interim ISG findings which indicated that small amounts of weapons of mass destruction were uncovered, (including a number of vials containing biological agents stored in the home refrigerators of Iraqi scientists, for example) as well as discoveries of non-WMD programs banned by the United Nations and concealed during the IAEA and UNMOVIC inspections that began in 2002. Kay testified on January 28, 2004 that "the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed, militarized chemical weapons [in Iraq]". The Iraq Survey Group later released the final ISG report which included the following points:
- Iraq had destroyed its stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons after the Gulf War [9](but discoveries made by the ISG include a "clandestine network of laboratories ... that contained equipment ... suitable for continuing chemical biological weapons research");
- Saddam Hussein convinced his top military commanders that Iraq did indeed possess WMD that could be used against any U.S. invasion force, in order to prevent a coup over the prospects of fighting the U.S.-led Coalition without these weapons;
- Iraq's main goal was to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute WMD production;
- Iraq had intended to restart all banned weapons programs as soon as multilateral sanctions against it had been dropped, a prospect that the Iraqi government saw coming soon;
- Iraq used procurement contracts allowed under the Oil for Food program to buy influence among U.N. Security Council member states;
- No senior Iraqi official interviewed by the ISG believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever;
- There was "no indication [Iraq had] resumed fissile material or nuclear weapon research and development activities since 1991" (though there was extensive amount of "documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation"[10] and a "number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted". [11]).
David Kay opened his testimony during the "Kay Report" at a Senate panel by stating "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq (a quote commonly missattributed to the later head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer,[12] [13]). Kay went on though to say that, "Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441". He stated, "the work of the Iraq Survey Group has shown that Saddam Hussein had WMD intentions, had WMD programs that did survive, and did outwit for 12 years the United Nations Security Council and the resolutions [...] in large measure." Kay did "believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons there". He also stated, in spite of missing stockpiles, that "the world is far safer with [...] the removal of Saddam Hussein." [http://www.ceip.org/
Sa
War of Iraq
| War of Iraq | |
|---|---|
| Conflict | War of Iraq |
| Date | March 20, 2003–May 1, 2003 [major combat] (Occupation end: June 28, 2004) |
| Place | Iraq |
| Result |
|
| Major combatants | |
Republic of Iraq (Saddam Hussein regime) Ba'ath Loyalists |
Multinational force (aka., "Coalition of the Willing") United States of America |
| Victor: Multinational forces | |
| Categories | |
| Military history of Iraq Military history of the United Kingdom Military history of the United States | |
The War of Iraq (2003) was the war in the Middle East country of Iraq, which resulted from the the Iraq disarmament crisis of late 2002 and began with the invasion of 2003. The war was between the Iraqi military and a coalition of multinational forces. The United States and the United Kingdom were the two major components of the US-dubbed "Coalition of the willing" that invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein's regime. The US and UK claimed that the invasion was justified because Saddam Hussein had not complied with 19 UN resolutions requiring Iraq to destroy its special weapons and programs after the previous war.[14][15]. The forces opposing the coalition units were the conscript Iraqi Regular Army reinforced and strengthened by the Republican Guard and Fedayeen Saddam. The Iraqi forces presented little resistance to the invasion. In post-invasion Iraq (2003–2005), after the Hussein regime had been overthrown, activity centered around coalition and U.N. efforts to establishing a sovereign state. According to some opinion polls, the war was unpopular from the outset in many Coalition countries.
The "War of Iraq" refers to the war proper, beginning with the 2003 invasion, continuing in the occupation, and ending at the handover of sovereignty to the new Iraqi government. This conflict resulted in the defeat of the Iraqi regular Army and its supportive divisions. (ed., the details of this are cover in this article)
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operation Iraqi Freedom — often rumored to have been originally called Operation Iraqi Liberation before being changed due to an unwanted acronym — had the following military objectives, according to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:
- to end the regime of Saddam Hussein.
- to identify, isolate and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
- to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from that country.
- to collect such intelligence as we can related to terrorist networks.
- to collect such intelligence as we can related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction
- to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needy Iraqi citizens.
- to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people.
- to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.
Prior to invasion
Prior to invasion, the United States and other coalition forces involved in the 1991 Persian Gulf War had been engaged in a low-level conflict with Iraq, enforcing Iraqi no-fly zones. Iraqi air-defense installations were engaged on a fairly regular basis after repeatedly targeting American and British air patrols. In mid-2002, the U.S. began to change its response strategy, more carefully selecting targets in the southern part of the country in order to disrupt the military command structure in Iraq. A change in enforcement tactics was acknowledged at the time, but it was not made public that this was part of a plan known as Operation Southern Watch.
The weight of bombs dropped increased from none in March 2002 and 0.3 in April 2002 to between 8 and 14 tons per month in May-August, reaching a pre-war peak of 54.6 tons in September - prior to Congress' 11 October authorisation of the invasion. The September attacks included a 5 September 100-aircraft attack on the main air defence site in western Iraq. According to The New Statesman this was "Located at the furthest extreme of the southern no-fly zone, far away from the areas that needed to be patrolled to prevent attacks on the Shias, it was destroyed not because it was a threat to the patrols, but to allow allied special forces operating from Jordan to enter Iraq undetected." [16]
Combat and occupation summary
Coalition forces managed to topple the government and capture the key cities of a large nation in 21 days, taking minimal losses while attempting ineffectively to avoid large civilian deaths and high numbers of dead Iraqi military forces. Utilizing massive precision air strikes along with rapid ground attacks, the invasion seemed a success of the U.S., and did not require the huge army build-up like the 1991 Gulf War, which numbered half a million allied troops. This did prove short-sighted, however, due to the requirement for a much larger force to combat the irregular Iraqi forces in the aftermath of the war.
The Iraqi army, armed mainly with Soviet equipment, had no weapons that could stand up to invading forces, and managed only to stage a few ambushes that gained a great deal of media attention but in reality did nothing to slow the Coalition advance. Missiles launched from Iraq were either inderdicted by U.S. anti-air batteries, or missed their targets. Attacks on Coalition supply routes by Fedayeen militiamen were repulsed. The Iraqi's artillery proved almost worthless, and Iraq did not mobilize its air force to attempt a defense. The Iraqi T-72 tanks, the heaviest armored vehicles in the Iraqi Army, were both outdated and ill-maintained and were destroyed quickly, in part due to the Coalition's control of the air. The U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, Marine Corps and Naval Aviation, and British Royal Air Force operated with impunity throughout the country, pinpointing heavily defended enemy targets and destroying them before ground troops arrived.
The main battle tanks (MBT) of the Coalition forces, the U.S. M1 Abrams and British Challenger 2, proved their worth in the rapid advance across the country. Even with the large number of RPG attacks by irregular Iraqi forces, few Coalition tanks were lost and no tank crewmen was killed by hostile fire. All three British tank crew fatalities were a result of friendly fire. The only tank loss sustained by the British Army was a Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers that was hit by another Challenger 2, killing two crewmen.
The Iraqi Army suffered from poor morale, even amongst the supposedly elite Republican Guard, their strength sapped after weeks of aerial bombardment. Entire units simply melted away into the crowds upon the approach of Coalition troops. Other Iraqi Army officers were bribed by the CIA or coerced into surrendering to coalition forces. Worse, the Iraqi Army had incompetent leadership - reports state that Qusay Hussein, charged with the defense of Baghdad, dramatically shifted the positions of the two main divisions protecting Baghdad several times in the days before the arrival of U.S. forces, and as a result the units within were both confused and further demoralized when the U.S. Army attacked. By no means did the Coalition invasion force see the entire Iraqi military thrown against it, and it is assumed that most units disintegrated to either join the growing Iraqi insurgency or return to their homes. The documented number of Iraqi civilians killed by the Coalition military forces since 2003 according to various estimates ranges from 27,295 up to 30,789 (as of December 2005).
Invasion
Coalition forces managed to topple the government and capture the key cities of a large nation in only 21 days, taking minimal losses while also trying to avoid large civilian deaths and even high numbers of dead Iraqi military forces. The invasion did not require the huge army build-up like the 1991 Gulf War, which numbered half a million Allied troops. This did prove short-sighted, however, due to the requirement for a much larger force to combat the irregular Iraqi forces in the aftermath of the war.
The Saddam-built army, armed mainly with Soviet-built equipment, was overall ill-equipped in the face of Coalition forces. Missiles launched from Iraq were either interdicted by U.S. anti-air batteries, or made little to no strategic impact on their targets. Attacks on Coalition supply routes by Fedayeen militiamen were repulsed. The Iraqi's artillery proved completely innefective, and they did not even mobilize their air force to attempt a defense. The Iraqi T-72 tanks, the heaviest armored vehicles in the Iraqi Army, were both outdated and ill-maintained, and when they did stand up to Coalition forces were destroyed quickly, thanks in part due to the Coalition's air superiority. The U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Naval Aviation, and British Royal Air Force operated with impunity throughout the country, pinpointing heavily defended enemy targets and destroying them before ground troops arrived.
The main battle tanks (MBT) of the Coalition forces, the U.S. M1 Abrams and British Challenger 2, proved their worth in the rapid advance across the country. Even with the large number of RPG attacks by irregular Iraqi forces, few Coalition tanks were lost and no tank crewmen were killed by hostile fire. All three British tank crew fatalities were a result of friendly fire. The only tank loss sustained by the British Army was a Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers that was hit by another Challenger 2, killing two crewmen.
The Iraqi Army suffered from poor morale, even amongst the supposedly elite Republican Guard. Entire units simply melted away into the crowds upon the approach of Coalition troops, or actually saought Coalition forces out in order to surrender. In one case, a force of roughly 20-30 Iraqis attempted to surrender to a two-man vehicle repair and recovery team, invoking similiar instances of Iraqis surrendering to news crews during the Persian Gulf War. Other Iraqi Army officers were bribed by the CIA or coerced into surrendering to Coalition forces. Worse, the Iraqi Army had incompetent leadership - reports state that Qusay Hussein, charged with the defense of Baghdad, dramatically shifted the positions of the two main divisions protecting Baghdad several times in the days before the arrival of U.S. forces, and as a result the units within were both confused and further demoralized when U.S. Marine and British forces attacked. By no means did the Coalition invasion force see the entire Iraqi military thrown against it; Coalition units had orders to move to and seize objective target-points, and could only fire upon regular Iraqi military units if first fired upon. This resulted in most regular Iraqi military units emerging from the war fully intact and without ever having been engaged by US forces, especially in southern Iraq. It is assumed that most units disintegrated to either join the growing Iraqi insurgency or returned to their homes.
Bush's 'Mission Accomplished'
On 1 May 2003 George W. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, in a Lockheed S-3 Viking, where he gave a speech announcing the end of major combat operations in the Iraq war. Bush's landing was criticized by opponents as an overly theatrical and expensive stunt. Clearly visible in the background was a banner stating "Mission Accomplished." It was criticized by some as premature - especially later as the guerrilla war dragged on. However, one crewmember later stated the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's mission and not the war itself. In the weeks that followed Bush's dramatic aircraft carrier landing, all types of crime significantly increased in Iraq due to the lack of law enforcement and security after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Rise of the insurgency
In May of 2003, after the Iraqi conventional forces had been defeated, the coalition military noticed a gradually increasing flurry of attacks on the multinational troops in various regions, such as the "Sunni Triangle." In the chaos after the war, massive looting of the infrastructure, and most catastrophically, munitions occurred. According to the Pentagon, 250,000 tons (of 650,000 tons total) of ordnance were looted, providing an endless source of ammunition for the insurgents.
The insurgency in Iraq was concentrated in, but not limited to, an area referred to by Western media and the occupying forces as the Sunni triangle. This location includes Baghdad [17]. Critics point out that the regions where violence was most common was also the most populated regions, but this was not entirely true. The three provinces that had the most number of attacks were Baghdad, Anbar, and Salah Ad Din. Combined they account for 32% of the population. This may be misleading because Baghdad has a low ratio of attacks per capita. This resistance has been described as a type of guerrilla warfare. Insurgent tactics include mortars, suicide bombers, roadside bombs, small arms fire, and RPGs, as well as sabotage against the oil, water, and electrical infrastructure.
There is evidence that some of the resistance was organized, perhaps by the fedayeen and other Saddam Hussein or Ba'ath loyalists, religious radicals, Iraqis angered by the occupation, and foreign terrorists. [18] The insurgents are generally known to the Coalition forces as Anti-Iraqi Forces or AIF.
- Operation Planet X (15 May 2003)
Post-invasion Iraq, early- and mid-2003
The post-invasion environment began after the Hussein regime had been overthrown. It centers around Coalition and U.N. efforts to establish a democratic state capable of defending itself [19], versus various insurgent demands that the foreign forces leave the country
Coalition military forces launched several operations around Tigris River peninsula and in the Sunni Triangle. A series of similar operations were launched throughout the summer in the Sunni Triangle. Toward the end of 2003, the intensity and pace of insurgent attacks began to increase. A sharp surge in guerilla attacks, ushered in an insurgent effort that was termed the “Ramadan Offensive,” as it coincided with the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Coaliton forces brought to bear the use of air power for the first time since the end of the war.
Suspected ambush sites and mortar launching positions struck from the air and with artillery fire. Surveillance of major routes, patrols, and raids on suspected insurgents were stepped up. In addition, two villages, including Saddam’s birthplace of al-Auja and the small town of Abu Hishma were wrapped in barbed wire and carefully monitored. On 22 July 2003, during a raid by the U.S. 101st Airborne Division and men from Task Force 20, Saddam Hussein's sons (Uday and Qusay) and one of his grandsons were killed.
Capture of Saddam
In the wave of intelligence information fueling the raids on remaining Ba’ath Party members connected to insurgency, Saddam Hussein himself was captured on December 13 2003 on a farm near Tikrit. The operation was conducted by the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division and members of Task Force 121.
- Operation Red Dawn (13 December 2003)
Post-invasion Iraq, late-2003
With the capture of Saddam and a drop in the number of insurgent attacks (an average of 18 a day), some concluded the multinational forces were prevailing in the fight against the insurgency. With the weather growing cooler, United States forces were able to operate in full armor which reduced their casualty rate. The provisional government began training a security force intended to defend critical infrastructure, and the United States promised over $20 billion in reconstruction money in the form of credit against Iraq's future oil revenues. Of this, less than half a billion dollars had been spent in 10 months after it had been promised. Oil revenues were also used for rebuilding schools and for work on the electrical and refining infrastructure.
Shortly after the capture of Saddam, elements left out of the CPA began to agitate for elections and the formation of a Iraqi Interim Government. Most prominent among these was the Shia cleric Ali al-Sistani. More insurgents stepped up their activities. The two most turbulent centers were the area around Fallujah and the poor Shia sections of cities from Baghdad to Basra in the south.
|
|
Military occupation, early-2004
Early 2004 was marked by a relative lull in violence. Insurgent forces reorganized during which the multinational forces' tactics were studied and a renewed offensive planned. Guerilla attacks were less intense.
During the early occupation, a number of widely-cited humanitarian, tactical, and political errors by United States and United Kingdom planners and forces led to a growing armed resistance, usually called the "Iraqi insurgency" (such as the mainstream media and coalition governments). The anti-occupation forces are believed to be predominantly, but not exclusively, Iraqi Sunni Muslim Arabs, plus some foreign Arab and Muslim fighters, some of the latter tied to al-Qaeda. Several minor coalition members have pulled out of Iraq; this has been widely considered a political success for the anti-occupation forces.
The failure to restore basic services to above pre-war levels, where over a decade of sanctions, bombing, corruption, and decaying infrastructure had left major cities functioning at much-reduced levels, also contributed to local anger at the IPA government headed by an executive council. On 2 July 2003, President Bush declared that American troops would remain in Iraq in spite of the attacks, challenging the opponents with "My answer is, Bring 'em on," a line the President later expressed misgivings about having used. [20] In the summer of 2003, the multinational forces focused on hunting down the remaining leaders of the former regime, culminating in the shooting deaths of Saddam's two sons in July. In all, over 200 top leaders of the former regime were killed or captured, as well as numerous lesser functionaries and military personnel.
Increased terrorism and the Mahdi Army
Terroristic acts increased during the beginning of 2004. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians and police were killed over this period in a series of massive bombings. The bombings indicated that as the relevance of Saddam Hussein and his followers was diminishing, radical Islamists, both foreign and Iraqi. An organized Sunni insurgency, with deep roots and both nationalist and Islamist motivations, was becoming clearer. The Mahdi Army also began launching attacks on coalition targets and to seize control from Iraqi security forces. The southern and central portions of Iraq were beginning to erupt in urban guerilla combat as multinational forces attempted to keep control and prepared for a counteroffensive.
|
|
Fallujah and the Shiite south
The coalition and the Coalition Provisional Authority decided to face the growing insurgency with a pair of assaults: one on Fallujah, the center of the "Mohammed's Army of Al-Ansar", and another on Najaf, home of an important mosque, which had become the focal point for the Mahdi Army and its activities. Just before the attack on Fallujah, four private military contractors, working for Blackwater USA, were ambushed and their corpses mutilated by a large crowd, receiving a great deal of media attention.
After four private military contractors were killed and mutilated, preperation took place for the US Marines to take over responsibility for al-Anbar province in which Fallujah is located. On April 4, the multinational forces began assaults to clear Fallujah of insurgents. On April 9, the multinational force allowed more than 70,000 women, children and elderly residents to leave the besieged city, reportedly also allowing males of military age to leave. On April 10, the military declared a unilateral truce to allow for humanitarian supplies to enter Fallujah. Troops pulled back to the outskirts of the city; local leaders reciprocated the ceasefire, although lower-level intense fighting on both sides continued.
The usage by the U.S. of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against insurgents in Fallujah attracted controversy. [21]
The city of Fallujah remained under insurgent control despite the Marine's attempt to recapture it in Operation Vigilant Resolve. In the April battle for Fallujah, Coalition troops killed about 600 insurgents and a number of civilians, while 40 Americans died and hundreds were wounded in a fierce battle. The coalition forces were unable to dislodge the insurgents, and instead suffered repeated attacks on its own rear and flank. The Marines were ordered to stand-down and cordon off the city, maintaining a perimeter around Fallujah. A compromise was reached in order to ensure security within Fallujah itself by creating the local "Fallujah Brigade". While the Marine Division attacking had clear superiority in ground firepower and air support, it decided to accept a truce and a deal which put a former Baathist general in complete charge of the town. This compromise soon fell apart and insurgent control returned. By the end of the spring uprising, the cities of Fallujah, Samarra, Baquba, and Ramadi had been left under guerilla control with coalition patrols in the cities at a minimum.
Meanwhile, the fighting continued in the Shiite south. The marines were then shifted south, because Italian and Polish forces were having increasing difficulties retaining control over Nasiriya and Najaf. The marines relieved the Poles and Italians, and put down the overt rebellion, but were unable to reestablish control over the centers of the towns. British forces in Basra were faced with increasing insurgency and became more selective in the areas they patrolled. In all, April, May and early June saw more fighting. Over the next three months, the multinanational forces took back the southern cities. Due to various setbacks, the Coalition gradually began admitting that it was facing independent organized rebel forces. Also, various insurgent leaders entered into negotiations with the provisional government to lay down arms and enter the political process.
Operations under the new Iraqi government
- Main article: Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations
Toward the end of June (2004), the Coalition Provisional Authority transferred the "sovereignty" of Iraq to a caretaker government, whose first act was to begin the trial of Saddam Hussein. Sovereign power handed to the interim government ended the occupation of Iraq. Fighting continued in the form of an insurgent rebellion against the new sovereignty, with some parts composed of non-Iraqi Muslim militant groups like Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda. The new government began the process of moving towards open elections, though the insurgency and the lack of cohesion within the government itself, has lead to delays. Militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr took control of Najaf and, after negotiations broke down, the government asked the United States for help dislodging him. Through the months of July and August, a series of skirmishes in and around Najaf culminated with the Imman Ali Mosque itself under siege, only to have a peace deal brokered by al-Sistani in late August. Al-Sadr then declared a national cease fire, and opened negotiations with the American and government forces on disbanding his militia and entering the political process.
The Iraqi insurgency
With the Ba'ath party organization disintegrated, elements of the secret police and Republican Guard formed guerrilla units, since some had simply gone home rather than openly fight the multinational forces. These joined the insurgency and their attacks around Mosul, Tikrit and Fallujah. The militants and guerilla units favored attacking unarmored vehicles and avoiding major battles. The beginning insurgency in Iraq was concentrated in, but not limited to, an area referred to by the Western media and the occupying forces as the Sunni triangle which includes Baghdad [22]. In the fall, the anti-occupation groups, guerrilla units, and other elements (who called themselves "freedom fighters") began using ambush tactics, bombings, kidnappings, and improvised explosive devices, targeting coalition forces, checkpoints, and civilian targets. These irregular forces favored attacking unarmored Humvee vehicles. In November, some these forces successfully attacked U.S. rotary aircraft with SAM-7 missiles bought on the global black market.
Critics point out that the regions where violence is most common are also the most populated regions.
The militant forces have been described as a type of guerrilla warfare. tactics include mortars, suicide bombers, roadside bombs, small arms fire, and RPGs, as well as sabotage against the oil, water, and electrical infrastructure. There is evidence that some guerilla groups are organized, perhaps by the fedayeen and other Saddam Hussein or Ba'ath loyalists, religious radicals, Iraqis angered by the occupation, and foreign fighters. [23] The insurgents are known by the Coalition military (especially in the United States armed forces) as Anti-Iraqi Forces (AIF). g1 g2. Some American Generals have predicted the insurgency will last nine years.
Notes
- Template:Fnb The conflict is also commonly referred to as Gulf War II or the Second Gulf War to distinguish it from the Persian Gulf War of 1991. These terms are less frequently used today than "the Iraq war", "the war in Iraq, War of Iraq or Bush's War of 2003 (the last one is especially used by anti-war activists).
- Template:Fnb "War" is often written in lowercase, such as in "Iraq war", to indicate informal status or to distinguish its definition from the formal variant (as in "Iraq War").
- Template:Fnb The term "multinational" in Multinational forces in Iraq is criticized due to the fact that most participating nations' troop contributions were vestigial when 98% of the invading forces were provided by the United States and the United Kingdom.
References
- ^ Hague Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities, article one.
- ^ "Powell calls pre-Iraq U.N. speech a 'blot' on his record". USAToday, 8 September 2005.
- An Ounce of Prevention- Looting of Munitions- Sept 2005
- ^ Secretary Colin L. Powell, "Interview On BBC's NewsNight". state.gov (Washington, DC), February 20 2003.
February 20, 2003.
- ^ "U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council". whitehouse.gov, February 5 2003.
- ^ Smith, Michael, "The war before the war". New Statesman, 30 May 2005.
- ^ "Iraq Poll 2003". gallup-international.
- ^ "Post War Iraq Poll". gallup-international.
- ^ , Dana, Bash, "White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign; Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say". CNN Washington Bureau, Wednesday, October 29 2003.
- ^ Karon, Tony, "Why Turks and Kurds Prize Kirkuk : Kurdish fighters have captured Kirkuk and Turkey is agitated. The U.S. could soon find itself policing an ugly brawl". Time Magazine, Thursday, 10 April 2003.
- ^ "Operation Iraqi Freedom Maps". globalsecurity.org.
- ^ Soriano, Cesar G., and Steven Komarow, "Poll: Iraqis out of patience". USA TODAY. 30 April 2004 6:54 AM.
- ^ "President Regrets 'Bring 'Em On'". NewsMax.com Wires, Friday, 14 January 2005.
See also
|
|
External articles
|
|
|
|