Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq
Support and opposition for the U.S. plan to invade Iraq.
Support for the proposed invasion
As of January of 2002, polls show that a majority of people within the United States desire to see UN weapons inspections continue. Most of these people feel that the US government has not yet made a clear case for war. These same polls showed that at one time as much as 70% has supported in principle an invasion to remove Hussein from power, but this number has continued to slip. For example, Washington Post polls showed support slipping from 78% in November to 57% in January. Also, any support for any such invasion in principle is is contingent on many factors, including United Nations support. These polls showed that a majority of Americans oppose war with Iraq if the US goes alone or has only a few nations supporting it. [1]
A number of Iraqi opposition groups have shown support for the potential U.S. led invasion, in spite of the fact that they find little else to agree on. Ahmad Chalabi, of the Iraqi National Congress told a Turkish news agency that they "do not see an operation as a war between Iraq and the United States. This will be a war to liberate Iraq. The opposition will play a great role.
Early on, most polls showed that the American people gave qualified support for the administrations efforts. Some polls, like one conducted by Newsweek, have even suggested that the administration's policy with Iraq played a major role in the Republican's victory during the 2002 elections. However, one later poll showed that support has waned, with 72% of Americans saying that Bush has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq. [2]) And in late January, three polls, conducted by Knight-Ridder, Newsweek and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, showed that support was slipping.
Although some of them have changed their opinion in the last two years, in 1998, many key Democrats including President Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt were supporting the idea of destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, using force if necessary. In February of 1998, former President Clinton remarked "(Hussein's) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act." Senate Democrats also passed Resolution 71, which urged President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's weapons of mass destruction programs." Plans were put on hold when Hussein agreed to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq. However, in early December of 1998, the British and US governments launched airstrikes against Iraq, codenamed Operation Desert Fox. The US government urged UNSCOM executive chairman Richard Butler to withdraw, and "[a] few hours before the attack began, 125 UN personnel were hurriedly evacuated from Baghdad to Bahrain, including inspectors from the UN Special Commission on Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency." [3]
US Senator Joseph Lieberman said the U.S. military action against Iraq is justified, calling the inventory of arms the Iraqi government submitted on Saturday "a 12,000-page, 100-pound lie." [4]
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said on October 10, 2002 that Canada will be part of any military coalition sanctioned by the United Nations to invade Iraq. Yahoo! news article
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has frequently expressed support for the United States in this matter. However, public support is very divided. Many Members of Parliament have expressed objections to a war on Iraq, and even members of the government are believed to have reservations.
The governments of countries such as Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia have shown their support by allowing the U.S. to use their air strips and military bases, however, the level of public support in those countries of military action remains to be seen.
Public relations plans to support the proposed invasion
The Rendon Group, a Washington, DC based public relations firm with close ties to the US government, and which has had a prominent role in promoting the Iraqi National Congress, is alleged by some journalists to be planning to support the proposed invasion by a careful public relations campaign.
Such a campaign would be viewed by many with skepticism, recalling that the PR firm Hill & Knowlton supported the Gulf War in 1991 with a campaign including misinformation such as a false story of Iraqi soldiers' barbaric treatment of incubator babies. [5]
In late 2001, with the Pentagon's focus on information warfare as an integral facet of the American war doctrine increasing, the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence was formed. This office was created with a mandate to propagandize throughout the Middle East, Asia and Western Europe, with the help of the abovementioned Rendon Group. In February 2002, amid a backlash of public outcry resulting from a New York Times article, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed he lacked knowledge of the program and the OSI was closed down. [6]
In January of 2003, with the Office of Strategic Influence dismantled, President Bush formally announced "the creation of a White House "Office of Global Communications" to broadcast the United States' message worldwide ahead of possible war on Iraq," [7] which had been effectively operating for several months prior. [8] According to the White House, the office will disseminate the policies of the US Government to media sources, domestic and foreign, and send "teams of communicators to international hot spots, areas of media interest." [9] Having a similar mission to the now-defunct OSI, many skeptics have voiced opinions regarding the legitimacy of this new office. [10]
Psychological operations against Iraq
An U.S. Army psychological warfare group is operating in the region. United States and British aircraft have dropped leaflets on Iraqi cities and military positions, warning Iraqi soldiers not to fire on Coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone and not to support Saddam Hussein. In addition, EC-130 Commando Solo aircraft, equipped with mediumwave, shortwave and FM transmitters, have been broadcasting directly to the Iraqi people.
Opposition to the proposed invasion
An investigative report published by Knight-Ridder in early October of 2002 showed that US intelligence analysts had serious misgivings about invading Iraq. The report showed that intelligence officials largely found no evidence to support the Bush administration's position that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat, but they were being squelched, while at the same time the intelligence community was being placed under intense pressure to find justification for Bush's position. [11]
On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "pre-emptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" cannot currently be justified. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a "just war", as defined by Catholic theology. [12]
The Vatican has also come out against war in Iraq. Archbishop Renato Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters last week that war against Iraq was a "preventative" war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a "just war." The foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, expressed concerns that a war in Iraq would inflame anti-Christian feelings in the Islamic world.
Both the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, and his replacement, Rowan Williams, have spoken out forcefully against war with Iraq.
On October 26, 2002, A protest rally in Washington, DC to express their opposition to war against Iraq, with 40,000+ Americans in attendance, according to rally organizers. (However, most major media organizations and the US park police have stopped making official estimates about crowd sizes years ago, after lawsuits by the orginizers of the "million man march".)
On January 16, 2002, protests were held worldwide in opposition to the war, including in Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Argentina, and the United States, where Americans attended a rally in Washington, DC. The U.S. Park Police, which oversees activities on the Mall, no longer provided estimates of crowd size, but said that protest organizers only had a permit for 30,000 demonstrators. According to rally organizers, 200,000+ Americans were in attendance.
As of August 2002, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who believes U.N. inspections effectively verified the destruction of over 90% of Iraq's weapon capabilities, is actively campaigning against an invasion, and challenging the Bush administration to make public any evidence that Iraq has rebuilt the capabilities which were destroyed under the auspices of UNSCOM. Says Ritter, "If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof." However, critics of Ritter point out that four years earlier he had exactly the opposite view as inspectors were forced to leave Iraq. In 1998, upon leaving Iraq, Ritter sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming," Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." It is unclear why Ritter's opinion changed so drastically in four years without inspections.
There is much less international support for the projected US invasion than there was for the Gulf War. Some nations that were allies of the United States during the Gulf War are either opposed to war this time, or reluctant to help with it. Many argue that Iraq has no connection to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Some of the countries that are the strongest critics of a planned invasion in 2002, like France, also opposed to the Gulf War up until the start of the war. The U.S. government has claimed that some of these countries have showed support in private, asserting that they are afraid to do so in a public way. However, as of late January, the United States had asked 53 countries to join it in a military campaign against Iraq, and only a small number has agreed to do so, with even fewer agreeing to provide troops. [13]
Others opposed to US military action argue that insufficient evidence has been produced of "an immediate threat" and accordingly such action would be contary to international law. On the other hand, proponents of war suggest that United Nations resolutions authorizing the Gulf War remain in effect and justify military action, regardless of concerns over evidence.
When President of the United States George W. Bush toured Europe in June, 2002, tens of thousands of people protested his presence. Most European leaders, with the notable exception of Tony Blair, oppose American action against Iraq; German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made his opposition to the invasion an issue in his electoral campaign, and some analysts credit Schroeder's come-from-behind victory on September 22 to tapping a broad anti-war sentiment among the German people.
Several senior Republican leaders, including some within the Bush Administration, have expressed reservations about an invasion of Iraq.
- Henry Kissinger (Secretary of State 1973-77) wrote in an August 12 editorial to The Washington Post that there is an imperative to preemptive action, but also warned of destabilizing the Middle East and of potential negative long-term consequences.
- James A. Baker III (Secretary of State 1989-92), in an August 25 editorial to The New York Times, argued that the United States should first push for renewed weapons inspections, and if war is ultimately necessary, the U.S. should not "go it alone".
- Lawrence Eagleburger (Secretary of State 1992-93) said on August 18 on Fox News Sunday that invasion was unjustified "unless the President can demonstrate to all of us that Saddam has his finger on a nuclear, biological or chemical trigger and he's about to use it".
- Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor 1975-77, 89-93) argued in an August 15 editorial to the Wall Street Journal that an invasion would be costly and a distraction from more pressing issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war on terrorism.
- Colin Powell (Secretary of State 2001-present) is not publicly disagreeing with Bush, but appears to be arguing behind the scenes that the U.S. must have a long-term plan for how to rebuild Iraq if and when Saddam is overthrown.
- Norman Schwarzkopf (Former General, The Gulf War) said on January 28 in an article in The Washington Post that U.S. should wait for the results of United Nations inspectors and expressed concerns about the human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.
Some people say North Korea poses more of a threat, while at least Saddam is co-operating. Critics say the US is less interested in North Korea because the country has no oil.
On January 18, 2003, a mass mobilization pulled together demonstrations against the war in cities around the world, including Tokyo, Moscow, Paris, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Cologne, Bonn, Goteborg, Florence, Oslo, Rotterdam, Istanbul, and Cairo. NION and ANSWER held anti-war protests in Washington D.C. and San Francisco, California. In San Francisco, between 150,000 and 200,000 people attended the demonstration. The San Francisco police had originally estimated the crowd size at 55,000, but admitted later that they had badly underestimated the number and changed their estimate to 150,000.
On January 27, 2003, The International Study Team--an organization of academics, researchers, physicians, and child psychologists--published a report titled "The Impact of a New War on Iraqi Children". The report concluded that a "grave humanitarian" disaster could result from a war with Iraq, particularly affecting Iraq's children. (See Report: Death, disease await Iraqi children in the event of war)
Public Opinion
The UN Security Council
Great Britain has been USA's primary ally in the plans to attack Iraq. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister publicly and vigurously supports American policy on Iraq, but is perceived by some to exert a moderating influence on the American President George W. Bush. British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war had fallen to about 30%.
On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution", although France believes that Iraq may have an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. de Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs.
On January 22, German councillor Gerhard Schroeder at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac said that he and Mr. Chirac would do all they could to avert war. At the time, Germany is presiding over the Security council.
On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq."
On January 23, the Washington Post reported that Chinese position was "extremely close" to France's.
Many people feel that in the case of Germany, France and Russia, their ties to Iraq may be pulling them away from the US's position. All three companies have major oil deals and economic ties to the country. All three countries are suffering from faltering economies and some fear that the possibility of a new regime in Iraq could cause these deals to unravel. Just as an example, Iraq owes Russia somewhere around $8 billion. China also has oil contracts with Iraq. By the same token, many people also feel that many of the government that have aligned themselves with the US, despite strong opposition among their consituencies, have done so because of their own economic ties to the United States.
Local allies
Turkey is beginning to show reservations, fearing that a power vacuum after Saddam's defeat will give rise to a Kurdish state. Turkey, however, has agreed to allow U.S. use of the air base at Incirlik, and to allowing the U.S. to investigate possible use of airports at Gaziantep, Malatya, and Diyabakir, as well as the seaports of Antalya and Mersi.
In December 2002, Turkey moved approximately 15,000 soldiers to the border with Iraq. The Turkish General Staff stated that this move was in light of recent developments and did not indicate an attack was imminent. In January 2003, the Turkish foreign minister, Yasar Yakis, said he was examining documents from the time of the Ottoman Empire to determine whether Turkey had a claim to the oil fields around the northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.
In late January 2003, Turkey invited at least five other regional countries to a "'last-chance' meeting to avert a US-led war against Iraq." [14] The group urged neighboring Iraq to continue cooperating with the UN inspections, and agreed that "military strikes on Iraq might further destabilize the Middle East region." [15] Also in attendance were Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
The population of Jordan, another important US ally in the area, is completely opposed to any action. Prior to UN sanctions being placed on Iraq, all oil in Jordan was supplied at very low rates from Iraq. When shipments ended the economy suffered terribly, and today the Jordanian economy is completely dependent on US supplies and economic aid. The govornment is attempting to follow a policy of neutrality, but is under increasing pressure by the public to refuse to allow US basing there.
Saudi Arabia is in a similar situation, although they are not as dependent on the US economically. Their public remains dead set against US action, regardless of a UN mandate. The government has repeatedly attempted to find a diplomatic solution, going so far as to suggest that Saddam should go into voluntary exile.
Perhaps the only local ally supporting US action is Kuwait, whose hostility towards Iraq stems from the events surrounding the Gulf War. The public appears to consider Saddam to be as much of a threat today as in the past, and are particularly interested in attempts to repatriate many Kuwaiti citizens who disappeared during the Gulf War, and may be languishing in Iraqi jails to this day. However, even in Kuwait, there is increasing hostility towards the United States. [16]
Other allies
Britain has remained a stauch supporter of action against Iraq, but it remains to be seen whether or not they will continue to support the US in absence of a UN mandate. Public support is divided, but increasingly beligerant posturing by the US appears to have tipped it against US actions. This has since spilled into the public, with Tony Blair becoming the target of an increasing number of attacks portraying him as Bush's "lap dog".
They are nevertheless tentatively sending 40,000 men from the British Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force, including the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. The ground component will include 100 Challenger tanks. The First Armoured Division's 7th Armoured Brigade and 4th Armoured Brigade will take part in any war.
Australia is committing a 150-strong Special Air Services squadron, three naval vessels, F/A-18 Hornet fighter-bombers, and P-3C Orion aircraft.
While Canada participated in the Gulf War of 1991, it has indicated that support might not be offered again, in part due to reluctance to fight without UN approval. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien stated publically on January 23rd that Canada will not support the US without a UN mandate.
France, Germany and Russia are publically opposed to US plans at all levels. As the US has increased the tone of its message, these countries have become increasingly opposed, and since France and Russia both have US Security Council vetos, it is unlikely that any UN mandate could be passed in the short term. US officials, notably Rumsfeld, responded by dismissing the countries involved as being "Old Europe", further angering all involved. Others have speculated that these countries are against a war because of widespread European "anti-American" sentiment, and the fact that they each have strong economic ties to Iraq. (see "The UN Security Council" above)
Almost all countries have called on the US to wait for the weapons inspectors to complete their investigations, which would occur in the middle of 2003. This places the US in a particularily bad position, if the inspectors do turn up evidence that would require an invasion, it would have to take place during the summer when the temperatures are too high for effective operations. This may be the main reason why the US has recently stepped up calls for an invasion, and the rhetoric about their allies' lack of will.
However, according to the recently passed Security Council Resolution 1441, it is not up to the U.N. inspectors, but it is up to Iraq to prove that the country does not have weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors are in the country only to verify Iraq's claims. Both the US and the UN security council are aware of large quantities of weapons and chemicals which have still been unaccounted for. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly states that failing to account for all of their weapons materials and programs - even those that have been destroyed - qualifies as a "material breach" which would lead to "severe consequences".
The US has also repeatedly claimed that they will shortly provide ample evidence of Iraqi deception, stating that it more than justifies and invasion. However these claims have never been backed up, at least not in public, and appear to be increasingly ignored.
Given the current state of the public evidence against Iraq, or more accurately, the lack of it, it appears unlikely that a UN mandate will be forthcoming. This suggests that the US will have to lead a coalition of supporters into a war in Iraq without U.N. support.
In the US
A recent (January) poll shows rapidly decreasing support for an invasion, although there is still more public support than there was prior to the Gulf War a decade ago. Much of this appears to be for the same reason that allied support appears to be dropping; namely the US public believing that the weapons inspectors should be given the time they need to complete their investigations. US officials have downplayed this shift in public opinion, claiming that it is not a true reflection of the public mood.
A more recent poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News released January 24th shows even less support for the US-led war. Approximately 2 out of 3 respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately. Interestingly, this same poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but do not expect UN inspectors to find them. These numbers indicate a dramatic drop in support, as, two months prior, most polls showed about two-thirds of those polled supporting military action. However, just under 70% of those polled do support the use of military action to remove Saddam from power, which closely mirrors recent polls taken by Time Magazine, CNN, FOX news, USA Today, CBS News and other news organizations. Recent polls also show that most Americans do not think that Saddam is cooperating with inspectors. [17]