HOME WEB NEWS IMAGES CLASSIFIEDS YELLOW PAGESPOLLS - SURVEYS WIKI COUNTRIES PHOTOS US UK INDIA
Cities Stocks Weather Movies Coupons Travel Blogs Health Horoscope Maps ASIA EUROPE Classifieds Yellow Pages
|
This article is about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. For events after May 1 2003, see Iraq War.
| Iraq War |
|---|
| Invasion – Post-invasion (Insurgency – Civil war) Battles & operations – Bombings and terrorist attacks |
| Recent wars in the |
|---|
| Iran-Iraq War – Gulf War – Iraq War |
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, from March 20 to May 1, 2003, was led by the United States, backed by British forces and smaller contingents from Australia, Poland and Denmark. Some other countries were involved in its aftermath. The invasion launched the Iraq War, which is ongoing.
The objectives of the invasion, according to U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. former PM Tony Blair were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein\'s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Blair said the actual trigger was Iraq\'s failure to take a “final opportunity” to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and coalition officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html In a January 2003 CBS poll 64% of Americans approved of military action against Iraq but 63% wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution rather going to war with Iraq, 62% believed the threat of terror would increase if war was waged with Iraq, ."Poll: Talk First, Fight Later". CBS.com, Jan. 24, 2003. Retrieved on April 23, 2007.
No such weapons were found in Iraq. In January 2005, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its WMD programs in 1991 and had no WMD at the time of the invasion; although some misplaced or abandoned remnants of pre-1991 production were found, U.S. government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the U.S. "went to war".
The invasion of Iraq was flip ur meat opposed by some traditional U.S. allies, including France and Germany. Their leaders argued there was no real evidence of WMD and that a war in Iraq was not justified in the context of UNMOVIC\'s February 12 2003 report. On Feb.15, 2003, a month before the invasion, there were many worldwide protests against the Iraq war, including a rally of 3 million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guiness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.Guinness World Records, Largest Anti-War Rally (English). Guinness World Records. Archived from the original on 2004-09-04. Retrieved on 2007-01-11. According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.Callinicos, Alex. "Anti-war protests do make a difference", Socialist Worker, March 19, 2005. Retrieved on 2007-01-11. (English)
In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops were assembled in Kuwait by February 18.U.S. has 100,000 troops in Kuwait. The United States supplied the vast majority of the invading forces, but also received support from Kurdish troops in northern Iraq.
Contents |
Rumsfeld, at the time Ronald Reagan\'s special envoy to the Middle East, meeting with Saddam Hussein during a visit to Baghdad, Iraq in December, 1983, during the Iran-Iraq War. In later years, this image was downplayed by Rumsfeld and highlighted by his opponents, as relations with Hussein\'s regime deteriorated. (Video frame capture; see the complete video here.)
After the invasion of the Gulf War of 1991, the U.S., and the international community maintained a policy of “containment” towards Iraq. This policy involved numerous and crushing economic sanctions, U.S. and UK patrols of Iraqi no-fly zones declared to protect Kurds in northern Iraq and Shias in the south, and ongoing inspections to prevent Iraqi development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Iraqi military helicopters and planes regularly contested the no-fly zones."Iraq tests no-fly zone", CNN.com, January 4, 1999. Retrieved on 2006-05-25. "Coalition planes hit Iraq sites in no-fly zone", CNN.com, November 28, 2002. Retrieved on 2006-05-25.
In October 1998, U.S. policy began to shift away from containment and towards “regime change,” as the U.S. Congress passed and President Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act." Signed in response to Iraq\'s termination of its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August, the act provided $97 million for Iraqi "democratic opposition organizations" to "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate). Library of Congress. Retrieved on 2006-05-25. This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687,which focused on weapons and weapons programs and made no mention of regime change.RESOLUTION 687 (1991) (April 8, 1991). Retrieved on 2006-05-25. One month after the passage of the “Iraq Liberation Act,” the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign’s express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government’s ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also hoped it would help weaken Hussein’s grip on power.Arkin, William. “The Difference Was in the Details”. The Washington Post, January 17, 1999; Page B1. Retrieved from [1] on April 23, 2007.
With the election of George W. Bush as U.S. President in 2000, the U.S. moved towards a more active policy of “regime change” in Iraq. The Republican Party\'s campaign platform in the 2000 election called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein, and key Bush advisors, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld’s Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, were longstanding advocates of invading Iraq.REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2000. CNN.com. Retrieved on 2006-05-25.After leaving the administration, former Bush treasury secretary Paul O\'Neill said that an attack on Iraq had been planned since the inauguration, and that the first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion. O\'Neill later backtracked, saying that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration."O\'Neill: \'Frenzy\' distorted war plans account", CNN.com, January 14, 2004. Retrieved on 2006-05-26.
Despite the Bush Administration’s stated interest in invading Iraq, little formal movement towards an invasion occurred until the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to aides who were with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on September 11, Rumsfeld asked for: "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit Saddam Hussein at same time. Not only Osama bin Laden." The notes also quote him as saying, "Go massive", and "Sweep it all up. Things related and not.""Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11", CBS News, September 4, 2002. Retrieved on 2006-05-26. The rationale for invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 has been widely questioned, as no direct cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda was known prior to 9/11 and subsequent intelligence has uncovered none.Smith, Jeffrey R. “Hussein\'s Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted”. The Washington Post, Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A01. Retrieved on April 23, 2007.
Shortly after September 11, 2001 (on September 20), President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress (which was simulcasted live to the world), and announced the new War on Terrorism. This announcement was accompanied by the widely criticized doctrine of \'pre-emptive\' military action, later termed the Bush doctrine. Some Bush advisers favored an immediate invasion of Iraq, while others advocated building an international coalition and obtaining United Nations authorization. Bush eventually decided to seek U.N. authorization, while still holding out the possibility of invading unilaterally."Chronology of the Bush Doctrine". Frontline.org. Retrieved on April 23, 2007.
While there had been some earlier talk of action against Iraq, the Bush administration waited until September 2002 to call for action, with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card saying, "From a marketing point of view, you don\'t introduce new products in August."William Schneider. Marketing Iraq: Why now?. Retrieved on 2006-09-04. Bush began formally making his case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq in his September 12, 2002 address to the U.N. Security Council.George W. Bush, "President\'s Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly: Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly, New York, New York", official transcript, press release, The White House, September 12, 2002, accessed May 24, 2007. Key U.S. allies in the NATO allies, including France and Germany, were critical of plans to invade Iraq, arguing instead for continued diplomacy and weapons inspections. After considerable debate, the U.N. Security Council adopted a compromise resolution, 1441, which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections and promised "serious consequences" for noncompliance. Security Council members France and Russia made clear that they did not believe these consequences to include the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi government."France threatens rival UN Iraq draft". BBC News, October 26, 2002. Retrieved on April 23, 2007 Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock publicly confirmed this reading of the resolution, assuring that Resolution 1441 provided no "automaticity" or "hidden triggers" for an invasion without further consultation of the Security Council.U.S. Wants Peaceful Disarmament of Iraq, Says Negroponte. Embassy of the United States in Manila (November 8, 2002). Retrieved on 2006-05-26.
Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". While the resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, Americans polled in January 2003 widely favored further diplomacy over an invasion. Later that year, however, Americans began to agree with Bush\'s plan. Americans overwhelmingly believed Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction: 85% said so, even though the inspectors hadn\'t uncovered those weapons yet. Of those who thought Iraq had weapons stashed somewhere, about half were pessimistic that they’d ever turn up. By February 2002, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power."Poll: Talk First, Fight Later". CBS.com, Jan. 24, 2003. Retrieved on April 23, 2007.
In February 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations General Assembly, continuing U.S. efforts to gain U.N. authorization for an invasion. Powell presented evidence alleging that Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons and had ties to al-Qaeda, claims that have since been widely discredited. As a follow-up to Powell’s presentation, the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain proposed a UN Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but U.S. NATO allies Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the U.S. eventually withdrew its resolution."US, Britain and Spain Abandon Resolution", Associated Press, 2003-03-17. Retrieved on 2006-08-06. "Bush: Iraq is playing \'willful charade\'", CNN, 2003-03-07. Retrieved on 2006-08-06.
With the failure of its resolution, the U.S. and UK abandoned the Security Council procedures and decided to pursue the invasion without U.N. authorization, a decision of questionable legality under international law.Iraq. House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Mar 2003 (pt 6). Retrieved on 2006-05-25. This decision was widely unpopular worldwide, and opposition to the invasion coalesced on February 15 in a worldwide anti-war protest that attracted big between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the Guinness Book of World Records. Largest anti-war rally, Guinness Book of World Records, 2004
In March 2003, the United States and United Kingdom began preparing for the invasion of Iraq, with a host of public relations, and military moves. In his March 17, 2003 address to the nation, Bush demanded that Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline.Global Message. Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved on 2006-06-07.Iraq rejected this demand, maintaining that it had already disarmed as required."Iraq Rejects US Demand That Hussein Leave", Associated Press, March 18, 2003. Retrieved on 2006-05-25. On March 20, 2003, the invasion of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom and some of their allies began, without UN support, unlike the first Gulf War or the invasion of Afghanistan.
In December 2002, a representative of the head of Iraqi Intelligence, Gen. Tahir Jalil Habbush al Takriti, contacted former CIA counterterrorism head Vincent Cannistraro, stating that Saddam "knew there was a campaign to link him to September 11 and prove he had weapons of mass destruction." Cannistrano further added that "the Iraqis were prepared to satisfy these concerns. I reported the conversation to senior levels of the state department and I was told to stand aside and they would handle it." Cannistrano stated that the offers made were all "killed" by the Bush administration because they allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power - an outcome viewed as unacceptable. It has been suggested that Saddam Hussein was prepared to go into exile if allowed to keep $1 billion USD. Jason Webb (Wednesday, September 26, 2007). Bush thought Saddam was prepared to flee: report. Reuters, Washington Post. Retrieved on 2007-09-27.
Shortly after, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak\'s national security advisor, Osama al Baz, sent a message to the U.S. State Department that the Iraqis wanted to discuss the accusations that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties with al-Qaeda. Iraq also attempted to reach the US through the Syrian, French, German, and Russian intelligence services. Nothing came of the attempts.
In January 2003, Lebanese-American Imad Hage met with Michael Maloof of the DoD\'s Office of Special Plans. Hage, a resident of Beirut, had been recruited by the department to assist in the War on Terrorism. He reported that Mohammed Nassif, a close aide to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, had expressed frustrations about the difficulties of Syria contacting the United States, and had attempted to use him as an intermediary. Maloof arranged for Hage to meet with Richard Perle, head of the Defense Policy Board.
In February 2003, Hage met with the chief of Iraqi intelligence\'s foreign operations, Hassan al-Obeidi. Obeidi told Hage that Baghdad didn\'t understand why they were being targeted, and that they had no WMDs; he then made the offer for Washington to send in 2000 FBI agents to ascertain this. He additionally offered oil concessions, but stopped short of having Hussein give up power, instead suggesting that elections could be held in two years. Later, Obeidi suggested that Hage travel to Baghdad for talks; he accepted.
Later that month, Hage met with Gen. Habbush in addition to Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. He was offered top priority to US firms in oil and mining rights, UN-supervised elections, US inspections (with up to 5,000 inspectors), to have al-Qaeda agent Abdul Rahman Yasin (in Iraqi custody since 1994) handed over as a sign of good faith, and to give "full support for any US plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process. They also wished to meet with high-ranking US officials. On February 19, Hage faxed Maloof his report of the trip. Maloof reports having brought the proposal to Jamie Duran. The Pentagon denies that either Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld, Duran\'s bosses, were aware of the plan.
On February 21st, Maloof informed Duran in an email that Perle wished to meet with Hage and the Iraqis if the Pentagon would clear it. Duran responded "Mike, working this. Keep this close hold.". On March 7, Perle met with Hage in Knightsbridge, and stated that he wanted to pursue the matter further with people in Washington (both have acknowledged the meeting). A few days later, he informed Hage that Washington refused to let him meet with Habbush to discuss the offer (Hage stated that Perle\'s response was "that the consensus in Washington was it was a no-go"). Perle told the Times, "The message was \'Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad."
George Bush and Tony Blair were explicit that the decision to invade Iraq rested on what Bush called a "single question".News Release. This was the allegation that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear weaponsWolf Blitzer. "Did the Bush Administration exaggerate the threat from Iraq?", CNN, July 8, 2003. of which it had to disarm. George Bush, speaking in October 2002, said that “The stated policy of the United States is regime change… However, if Hussein were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I have described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed”.Bob Kemper. "Saddam can keep rule if he complies: Bush", Daily Times: date=October 23 2002. Similarly, in September 2002, Tony Blair stated, in an answer to a parliamentary question, that “Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…”Tony Blair: Answer to Parliamentary Question. Hansard. In November of that year, Tony Blair further stated that “So far as our objective, it is disarmament, not régime change - that is our objective. Now I happen to believe the regime of Saddam is a very brutal and repressive regime, I think it does enormous damage to the Iraqi people... so I have got no doubt Saddam is very bad for Iraq, but on the other hand I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change.”PM gives interview to Radio Monte Carlo. At a press conference on January 31st 2003, George Bush again reiterated that the single trigger for the invasion would be Iraq’s failure to disarm: “Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm, for the sake of peace, we, along with others, will go disarm Saddam Hussein.”"Bush, Blair: Time running out for Saddam". As late as February 25th 2003, it was still the official line that the only cause of invasion would be a failure to disarm. As Tony Blair made clear in a statement to the House of Commons: “I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN\'s demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.”Tony Blair: Parliamentary Statement.
Additional justifications, used at various times included, Iraqi violation of UN resolutions, Saddam\'s repression of Iraqis and Iraqi violations of the 1991 cease-firePresident Discusses Beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. |conflict=2003 Invasion of Iraq | partof(allegedly)=U.S. War on Terrorism Main allegations were that Saddam Hussein was in possession of, or was attempting to produce, weapons of mass destruction and had ties to terrorists, specifically to al-Qaeda. Moreover, it has also been alleged by some commentators that, while never making an explicit connection between Iraq and the September 11th attacks, the Bush Administration did repeatedly insinuate a connection, thereby creating a false impression on the American public. For example, the Washington Post has noted that,
While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."Dana Milbank|"Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship" Washington Post|June 18, 2004; Page A09|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html|Retrieved 22/10/07
Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, observed in March 2003 that "The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]". This was following a New York Times/CBS poll that showed 45% of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the September 11 atrocities. As the Christian Science Monitor observed at the time, while "Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda... the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein\'s regime." The CSM went on to report that, while polling data collected "right after Sept. 11, 2001" showed that only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein, by January 2003 attitudes "had been transformed" with a Knight Ridder poll showing that 44% of Americans believed "most" or "some" of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.Linda Feldmann|The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq|Christian Science Monitor|March 14, 2003|http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html|Retrieved 22/10/07
The BBC has also noted that while President Bush "never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington..." he "repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September", adding that "Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two." For instance, the BBC report quotes Colin Powell in February 2003, stating that "We\'ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein\'s regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America." The same BBC report, from September 2003, also noted the results of a recent opinion poll, which suggested that "70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks."BBC News Online|"Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link"|Thursday, 18 September, 2003|news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm|Retrieved 22/10/07 Also in September 2003, the Boston Globe reported that "Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks."Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender|"Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged"|16/9/2003|http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/|Retrieved 22/10/07 A year later, Presidential candidate John Kerry alleged that Cheney was continuing "to intentionally mislead the American public by drawing a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in an attempt to make the invasion of Iraq part of the global war on terror.""Kerry challenges Bush on Iraq-9/11 connection"|CNN|12/9/04|http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/index.html|Retrieved 22/10/07
Throughout 2002, the Bush administration made clear that removing Saddam Hussein from power in order to restore international peace and security was a major goal. The principal stated justifications for this policy of "regime change" were that Iraq\'s continuing production of weapons of mass destruction and known ties to terrorist organizations, Iraq\'s continued violations of UN Security Council resolutions amounted to a threat to the U.S. and the world community.
Colin Powell holding a model vial of anthrax while giving presentation to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 (still photograph captured from video clip, The White House/CNN)
The Bush administration\'s overall rationale for the invasion of Iraq was presented in detail by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003; in summary, he stated:
| “ | Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks. | ” |
Since the invasion, U.S. and British claims concerning Iraqi weapons programs and links to terrorist organizations have been discredited. While the debate of whether Iraq intended to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the future remains open, no WMDs have been found in Iraq since the invasion despite comprehensive inspections lasting more than 18 months.Press, Associated. "CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq". MSNBC.com, April 25, 2005. Retrieved on April 5, 2007]. This accords with the statement made by Colin Powell in Cairo, on February 24 2001 that "He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."Australian Associated Press. "Pilger claims White House knew Saddam was no threat.", Sydney Morning Herald, September 23, 2003. Similarly, assertions of significant operational links[citation needed] between Iraq and al Qaeda have largely been discredited by the intelligence community, and Secretary Powell himself eventually admitted he had no incontrovertible proof.Marquis, Christopher. "Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda.", New York Times, January 9, 2004.
In September 2002, the Bush administration said attempts by Iraq to acquire thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes pointed to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. Indeed, Colin Powell, in his address to the U.N. Security Council just prior to the war, made reference to the aluminum tubes. But a report released by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2002 reported that it was highly unlikely that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium. Powell later admitted he had presented an inaccurate case to the United Nations on Iraqi weapons, and was in some cases "deliberately misleading.""Evidence on Iraq Challenged," Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, Sept. 19, 2002Colin Powell’s speech to the UN, Feb 5, 2003Meet the Press, NBC, May 16, 2004 However, Powell\'s admission is arguably disingenuous in light of the fact that the administration\'s position (as articulated by Rice and Powell) regarding Hussein just after taking office in the winter and spring of 2001 was that Hussein had no military, was essentially disarmed, and posed no threat to his neighbors[. http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv] It is their assertions that are strong evidence that the Administration was not mistaken about Hussein\'s alleged wmd program but that the Administration intentionally articulated a rationale that was different from what it actually believed, as articulated by Powell and Rice.
Critics of the invasion have also alleged that the U.S. and British governments deliberately fabricated evidence concerning Iraqi weapons programs and links to terrorists. Most notably, opponents of the invasion have accused the Bush Administration of relying on knowingly fraudulent evidence in asserting that the Hussein government had sought to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.Lichtblau, Eric. "2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim", The New York Times, January 18, 2006. Retrieved on May 10, 2007. On March 7, 2003, intelligence documents submitted as evidence to the IAEA were dismissed by the agency as forgeries, with the concurrence of outside experts. At the time, a U.S. official claimed that the evidence was submitted to the IAEA without knowledge of its provenance, and characterized any mistakes as "more likely due to incompetence not malice"; this explanation was deemed unsatisfactory by former CIA official and Iraq War critic Ray Close.Ensor, David. "Fake Iraq documents \'embarrassing\' for U.S.", CNN.com, 2003-03-14. Retrieved on 2007-05-10. Those who oppose these critics of the invasion maintain the fraudulent documents were never central--or even relevant--in intelligence assessments regarding Iraq seeking uranium.
Accusations that the invasion was fought on false pretenses were thought by some to be strengthened by the 2005 release of the so-called Downing Street Memo, a secret British document summarizing a 2002 meeting among British political, intelligence, and defense leaders. According to the memo, Chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service Sir Richard Dearlove claimed that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."Pincus, Walter. "British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War". Washington Post, Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A18. Retrieved on April 5, 2007. Some supporters of the war, however, claim the Memo simply reveals someone giving voice to an opinion, not proof of any facts.
Between September, 2002 and June, 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz created a Pentagon unit known as the Office of Special Plans (OSP), headed by Douglas Feith. It was created to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. One former CIA officer described the OSP as dangerous for U.S. national security and a threat to world peace, and that it lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam Hussein. He described it as a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality, taking bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignoring anything contrary."Revealed: The Secret Cabal Which Spun for Blair," Sunday Herald, Neil Mackay, June 8, 2003
In October, 2002, a few days before the U.S. Senate vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, about 75 senators were told in closed session that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) drones that could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack U.S. eastern seaboard cities. Colin Powell suggested in his presentation to the United Nations that UAVs were transported out of Iraq and could be launched against the U.S. In fact, Iraq had no offensive UAV fleet or any capability of putting UAVs on ships.Senator Bill Nelson (January 28, 2004) "New Information on Iraq\'s Possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction", Congressional Record Iraq\'s UAV fleet consisted of less than a handful of outdated Czech training drones.Lowe, C. (December 16, 2003) "Senator: White House Warned of UAV Attack," Defense Tech At the time, there was a vigorous dispute within the intelligence community as to whether CIA had conclusions about Iraqi UAVs were accurate. The U.S. Air Force agency most familiar with UAVs denied outright that Iraq possessed any offensive UAV capability.Hammond, J. (November 14, 2005) "The U.S. \'intelligence failure\' and Iraq\'s UAVs" The Yirmeyahu Review
As evidence supporting U.S. and British claims about Iraqi WMDs and links to terrorism weakened, some claim supporters of the invasion have increasingly shifted their justification to the human rights violations of the Hussein government. Senators Slam Shifting Iraq War Justification. Islamonline. July 30, 2003. Leading human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch have argued, however, that they believe human rights concerns were never a central justification for the invasion, nor do they believe that military intervention was justifiable on humanitarian grounds, most significantly because "the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention." Roth, Ken. "War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention" Human Rights Watch. January 2004. Retrieved April 6, 2007. Many supporters of the war, however, claim from the start human rights concerns were among the reasons given for the invasion, and that the threat of weapons of mass destruction was emphasized at the United Nations, since this dealt with Iraq flouting UN resolutions. They further claim human rights groups that oppose the war have no objective standard regarding when to invade a country.
Notwithstanding the stated justifications for the invasion, critics of the Bush Administration have also argued that the true motives included ensuring U.S. access to Iraqi oil and long term U.S. dominance in the Middle East.Porter, Adam. "British lawmaker: Iraq war was for oil". Aljazeera.net. May 22, 2005. Retrieved April 5, 2007. Bush Administration officials have vehemently denied these claims."Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War". CBSNews.com. Nov. 15, 2002. Retrieved on April 5, 2007. Jean-François Susbielle, a French author wrote a book in 2006 called book titled Chine-USA, la guerre programmée in which he claimed that the USA invaded Iraq in 2003 so as to have power over as many major oil fields as possible so as to control China’s access to oil. He believes that various neoconservatives view China as a strategic challenge that must be contained. Many supporters of the war counter that other nations made special deals with Iraq to buy its oil, and if the US were interested primarily in oil, it could have made a deal as well, a much easier route to what it desires than fighting a war; furthermore, they claim, oil was more instrumental in creating opposition to the war than support for it, since many nations, especially in Europe, wanted to maintain the oil supply they were receiving from Iraq.
The allegation that the Iraq was mainly about oil has since been supported by the remarks of Alan Greenspan, the recently retired head of the US Federal Reserve. In media coverage in advance of the publication of his memoirs, Greenspan is reported to have written that,
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."author=Bob Woodward|title=Greenspan Is Critical Of Bush in Memoir; Former Fed Chairman Has Praise for Clinton|publisher=Washington Post|date=September 16 2007
The media widely interpreted this as meaning that the casus belli was the appropriation of Iraqi oil. When asked to further elaborate, Greenspan said it was clear to him that Saddam Hussein had wanted to control the Straits of Hormuz and so control Middle East oil shipments through the vital route out of the Gulf. He said that had Saddam been able to do that it would have been "devastating to the west" as the former Iraqi president could have just shut off 5m barrels a day and brought "the industrial world to its knees."author=Richard Adams|title=Invasion of Iraq was driven by oil, says Greenspan|publisher=Guardian Unlimited|date=September 17 2007
The legality of the invasion of Iraq has been unsuccessfully challenged since its inception on a number of fronts, and several prominent supporters of the invasion in both the U.S. and Britain have publicly and privately cast doubt on its legality. It is claimed that the invasion was fully legal because authorization was implied by the United Nations Security Council.http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htmhttp://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/17926.htm International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, a group of 31 leading Canadian law professors, and the U.S.-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy have denounced both of these rationales.http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htmhttp://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en
On Thursday November 20, 2003, an article published in the Guardian alleged that Richard Perle, a senior member of the administration\'s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, conceded that the invasion was illegal but still justified.Burkeman, Oliver. "Invasion right but \'illegal\', says US hawk", The Age, November 21, 2003. Retrieved on 2006-05-26. Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger. "War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal", The Guardian, November 20, 2003. Retrieved on 2006-05-26.
The United Nations Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq\'s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990. It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq\'s occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."
Resolution 678 has not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions.
Resolution 1441 was most prominent during the run up to the war and formed the main backdrop for Secretary of State Colin Powell\'s address to the Security Council one month before the invasion.Transcript of Powell\'s U.N. Presentation.[CNN.com] At the same time, Bush Administration officials advanced a parallel legal argument using the earlier resolutions, which authorized force in response to Iraq\'s 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under this reasoning, by failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq\'s compliance through military means.
Critics and proponents of the legal rationale based on the U.N. resolutions argue that the legal right to determine how to enforce its resolutions lies with the Security Council alone, not with individual nations.
In February 2006, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the lead prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, reported that he had received 240 separate communications regarding the legality of the war, many of which concerned British participation in the invasion.Richard Norton-Taylor International court hears anti-war claims in The Guardian May 6, 2005. In a letter addressed to the complainants, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo explained that he could only consider issues related to conduct during the war and not to its underlying legality as a possible crime of aggression because no provision had yet been adopted which "defines the crime and sets out the conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction with respect to it." In a March 2007 interview with the Sunday Telegraph, Moreno-Ocampo encouraged Iraq to sign up with the court so that it could bring cases related to alleged war crimes.Chamberlin, Gethin. "Court \'can envisage\' Blair prosecution". The Sunday Telegraph, March 17, 2003. Retrieved on May 25, 2005. Luis Moreno-Ocampo also stated that his extensive investigation found no evidence for any war crime or any crime against humanity.
United States Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich held a press conference on the evening of April 24, 2007, revealing US House Resolution 333 and the three articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. He charges Cheney with manipulating the evidence of Iraq\'s weapons program, deceiving the nation about Iraq\'s connection to al-Qaeda, and threatening aggression against Iran in violation of the United Nations Charter.
United States military operations were conducted under the codename Operation Iraqi Liberation.Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer. The White House press release (2003-03-24). Retrieved on 2006-07-21. The codename was later changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom The United Kingdom military operation was named Operation Telic.
In November 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush, visiting Europe for a NATO summit, declared that "should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."Bush: Join \'coalition of willing\'. CNN (20-11-2002).
Thereafter, the Bush administration briefly used the term Coalition of the Willing to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the military action in Iraq and subsequent military presence in post-invasion Iraq since 2003. The original list prepared in March 2003 included 49 members.Coalition Members. The White House (27-03-2003). Of those 49, only four besides the U.S. contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark), 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete. Six members have no military.
Approximately 120,000 Soldiers and Marines from the United States, and 45,000 from the United Kingdom, as well as smaller forces from three other nations (Australia, Denmark and Poland), collectively called the "Coalition of the Willing", were deployed prior to the invasion primarily to several staging areas in Kuwait. When naval, logistics, intelligence, and air force personnel are included, the invasion force was approximately 248,000 American, 45,000 British, 2,000 Australians, 300 Danish, and 200 Polish (commando squad GROM) personnel. Of those troops, all but the special forces were kept close to bases and required to avoid hostile engagements. The invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000.
Plans for opening a second front in the north were severely hampered when Turkey refused the use of its territory for such purposes.for more information about Turkey\'s policy during the invasion look, Ali Balci and Murat Yesiltas, \'Turkey\'s New Middle East Policy: The Case of the Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Iraq\'s Neighboring Countries\', Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, XXIX (4), Summer 2006, pp. 18-38 In response to Turkey\'s decision, the United States dropped several thousand paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade into northern Iraq, a number significantly less than the 15,000 strong 4th Mechanized Infantry Division that the U.S. originally planned to use for opening the northern front.Ford, Peter. A weak northern front could lengthen Iraq War. Christian Science Monitor, April 03, 2003. Retrieved on May 7, 2003.
The number of personnel in the Iraqi military prior to the war was uncertain, but it was believed to have been poorly-equipped."Saddam\'s Last Line Of Defense", CBS, 2003-03-26. Retrieved on 2006-08-06. "Saddam counts on Republican Guard as last chance for defending Baghdad", Associated Press, 2003-03-26. Retrieved on 2006-08-06. Burgess, Mark. "CDI Primer: Iraqi Military Effectiveness", Center for Defense Information, 2002-11-12. Retrieved on 2006-08-06. The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated the Iraqi armed forces to number 389,000 (army 350,000, navy 2,000, air force 20,000 and air defense 17,000), the paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam 44,000, and reserves 650,000.Windle, David. "Military muscle", New Scientist, 2003-01-29. Retrieved on 2006-08-06. Another estimate numbers the army and Republican Guard at between 280,000 to 350,000 and 50,000 to 80,000, respectively,Iraqi Ground Forces Organization. GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved on 2006-08-06. and the paramilitary between 20,000 and 40,000."Most loyal soldiers in Iraq belong to Fedayeen Saddam", The Seattle Times, 2003-03-27. Retrieved on 2006-08-06. There were an estimated thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions, as well as some special forces units. The Iraqi Air Force and Iraqi Navy played a negligible role in the conflict. In 2005, the CIA released a report saying that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. [2]
Routes and major battles fought by invasion force and afterwards.
Since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the US and UK had been engaged in a low-level attacks on what remained of Iraqi air defences, while enforcing Iraqi no-fly zones."Iraq tests no-fly zone", CNN.com, January 4, 1999. Retrieved on 2006-05-25. "Coalition planes hit Iraq sites in no-fly zone", CNN.com, November 28, 2002. Retrieved on 2006-05-25.
