|
|
Iraq (last updated November 2, 2003) (back to top)
As of the beginning of November, it has been six months since President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Where are we now?
Violence within Iraq
Coalition forces occupying Iraq continue to suffer casualties from armed Iraqi attacks, and, as of the end of October, the United States has suffered more casualties in Iraq since the end of major combat operations there than during such operations. According to a survey of Department of Defense releases, 114 casualties have occurred in this post-operations period compared to 91 casualties during operations. The graph below shows the number of deaths per month based on combat-related and non-combat related reasons, as based on Department of Defense releases :
There have also been attacks on U.S. civilians in Iraq, such as a recent attack on a hotel where officials were staying. International organizations working in Iraq have also suffered attacks. The United Nations headquarters in Baghdad was bombed on August 19, resulting in 22 deaths, and two employees of the International Red Cross were killed in another bomb explosion on October 27. Various embassies and diplomats have also been bombed or targeted.
Reasons for War
Coalition forces led by the United States have found no credible evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction nor that Iraq had any real ties to al-Qaida, the radical Islamic terrorist group that seeks to depose secular regimes like Saddam Hussein's and replace them with more fundamentalist ones. Coalition forces have also not located Saddam Hussein, though they have captured or killed several leaders of Hussein's regime, including Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay, who were killed on July 22.
The lack of such evidence has revived questions about whether the United States was justified in invading Iraq. Bush basically offered three reasons for military action in Iraq: because of the threat Iraq posed the United States due to its possession of weapons of mass destruction and its potential to use such weapons, either directly or via a terrorist organization, because of U.N. Security Council resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not fully comply with disarmament obligations, and because of humanitarian reasons.
At least one Bush argument for going to war has come under particular scrutiny. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, Bush claimed that the British government had "learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (see statement with full text here). The CIA later admitted that this statement was insufficiently supported and should not have been included in the speech. In addressing criticism about the statement, White House officials also may have disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA operative, an allegation that the Department of Justice is now investigating. For more, go here.
Rebuilding and Funding
The Bush administration has grown concerned over the progress of rebuilding efforts and appears to be taking steps to improve progress there. In early October, the White House ordered a reorganization of American efforts to give the White House more control over the Iraqi occupation, creating a new "Iraq Stabilization Group" run by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (who Bush indeed described as an "unsticker" in an Oct. 28 press conference, on-line here).
The United States is also now getting more support from other countries in rebuilding Iraq. The United Nations authorized a multinational force on October 16 that will help stabilize Iraq. Many countries also met for a recent donors' conference in Madrid and pledged about $13 billion in aid.
Bush has also requested additional funding from Congress for Iraq, a request that is in the process of being met. According to Bush, the funds he first requested on September 7 will cover "ongoing military and intelligence operations" in Iraq ($51 billion) and support rebuilding efforts in Iraq ($20 billion). Some have criticized the request due to questions about how the funds will be used, a debate over whether Iraq should be required to pay the United States back once its oil industry is again operating, and budget cuts to domestic programs.
It is unclear exactly when Iraq will draft a new constitution or hold elections. The United Nations Security Council has asked the Governing Council of Iraq, a temporary group holding sovereignty over Iraq, to provide a timetable and plan by December 15.
Sources: The Department of Defense is on-line here. The Coalition Provisional Authority is on-line here. David E. Sanger, White House to overhaul Iraq and Afghan missions, New York Times, October 6, 2003. Bush's September 7, 2003 address to the nation is on-line here; a fact sheet breaking down the $86 billion request announced in that address is on-line here. Press releases about U.S. military casualties are available through the Department of Defense's news archive on-line here. President George W. Bush's May 1, 2003 declaration that major combat operations had ended in Iraq is on-line here.
Iraq (last updated May 4, 2003) (back to top)
With the end of Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States is now seeking to rebuild Iraq and establish a new government. President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq in a May 1, 2003 address from the USS Abraham Lincoln at sea in the Pacific Ocean, just a month and a half after the United States initiated military action against Iraq.
According to some press reports, current plans for Iraq's government and transition call for the country to be divided into three military sectors under the command of the United States, the United Kingdom and Poland. The United Nations currently has no political role in rebuilding Iraq and may be limited to humanitarian efforts, though members of the U.N. Security Council have called for a greater role.
The United States began military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003, shortly after abandoning a yearlong campaign to build international support within the United Nations to force Iraq to comply fully with disarmament obligations imposed after the 1991 Gulf War and re-iterated in November 2002. The United States based its action against Iraq largely on three principles that are based in international law and politics, though arguably stretched further than in the past.
- Anticipatory self-defense based on the threat Iraq poses due to its possession of weapons of mass destruction and its potential to use such weapons, either directly or via a terrorist organization. Countries have the right to defend themselves against an attack, and arguably have the right to launch a pre-emptive attack when an attack is imminent. However, the State Department itself said as late as early 2002 that Iraq had not taken any action against the United States since 1993, when it was linked to an assassination attempt against former President George H.W. Bush while visiting Kuwait; Iran is generally considered the most active state in terms of sponsoring terrorism.
- U.N. Security Council resolutions promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not fully comply with its disarmament obligations, which Iraq has not done. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, did demand greater compliance with weapons inspectors and it did imply some kind of threat, but it deliberately did not include the language typically used in the past to authorize military force. The Bush administration sought such authorization in early 2003 but abandoned such efforts in mid-March rather than have it rejected by customary allies France, Germany or Russia.
- Humanitarian reasons, namely, the removal of a dictator who has oppressed the Iraqi people. However, the United States has not removed other dictators from power and had more international support when it directed attacks against the Serbs for humanitarian reasons in 1998.
Many countries such as France, Germany, Russia and China criticized the United States for initiating military action. Turkey's Parliament initially rejected a measure that would have allowed the United States military to use the country as a staging area to invade Iraq, and many countries that Bush declared part of a "coalition of the willing" disagreed with their inclusion therein.
Background
Led by Saddam Hussein since 1979, Iraq fought two wars in the 1980s and 1990s over territorial boundaries. From 1980 to 1988, Iraq and neighboring Iran were at war over territorial boundaries. In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait but was ousted by a US-led coalition acting under UN resolutions in early 1991.
The United Nations required Iraq to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, and U.N. weapons inspectors began seeking access to Iraq in 1991. They faced difficulties throughout the 1990s, were forced out of the country in 1998, and did not return until late 2002. Inspectors have reported that Iraq had a biological weapons program (which Iraq says was destroyed in 1991), chemical weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles. The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors have reported that Iraq had a clandestine nuclear program as of late 1998, but that the program had not produced a nuclear weapon at that time. For more on Iraq's weapons, go here.
During the 1990s, the United States and the United Nations took various measures to limit Hussein's power and, ideally, to bring about an internal change in regime.
First, the international community imposed economic sanctions and took military actions such as Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 for Iraq's lack of cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. Even with the limited access provided by Iraq, inspectors issued reports concluding that Iraq has been developing chemical and biological weapons, and that it had made major steps towards building a nuclear weapon though it had not done so by December 1998. Aside from the inspections, the embargo and sanctions have been controversial, with many critics, especially in the Middle East, blaming such measures for ruining the Iraqi economy and creating a massive public health crisis; US officials put the blame instead on Iraq, noting that there is no embargo on food or medicines. For more on weapons inspections, go here. For more on sanctions, go here.
Problems over inspections loomed large in 1998, which ended with US and UK military strikes against Iraq. Over the course of 1998, Iraq and the UNSCOM had many conflicts, with Iraq denying full access to monitors. In August 1998, UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter resigned in protest, saying that the US and UK were putting pressure on UNSCOM to abandon planned inspections so as to avoid new confrontations with Iraq. By October 1998, Iraq refused to provide full cooperation until the embargo was lifted. Finally, UN inspectors left the country in December, and then on December 16, 1998, the United States and Britain initiated four days of air strikes against Iraq (Operation Desert Fox). According to the US Department of Defense, the 100 sites attacked were military targets, with only one economic target, a pumping station used in illegal oil exports.
Second, a UN coalition led by the United States and Britain has maintained no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq. These operations were initially justified as ways to protect Iraqi minorities such as the Kurds from attack by the regime, and have also been used to monitor the regime's activities. The UN also maintained a no-drive zone in southern Iraq to prevent a military build-up that could again invade Kuwait. For more on no-fly zones, go here.
Bush's Campaign to Build an International Coalition
President George W. Bush spent much of 2002 campaigning for military action against Iraq as part of the United States' extended "war on terror."
In his Jan. 29 State of the Union address, Bush described Iraq as one of several states constituting an "axis of evil" because of its search for weapons of mass destruction (see text here). He then took his case to the United Nations in a Sept. 12 speech demanding compliance with weapon inspections and other policy changes.
Within days, Iraq's Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Iraq would allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors "without conditions," according to a Sept. 16 letter addressed to and publicly released by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Iraq's government "based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction," Minister Naji Sabri wrote.
The Bush administration cast doubt on the validity of Iraq's decision, saying that Iraq was merely seeking further delay, and continued to push for Congressional authorization to use force, which it received with a resolution approved on October 10 and 11. Under that resolution, Bush was given authorization to use force as he deems "necessary and appropriate" to defend the United States and to enforce U.N. resolutions calling for Iraq's disarmament. The Bush administration also continued to push for a stronger U.N. resolution.
The U.N. Security Council resolution thus approved on Nov. 8 was the result of negotiations between the United States and several other countries such as France. During these negotiations, the United States dropped its insistence of calling for "all necessary means" to enforce the terms, and agreed to the two-stage process in which the Security Council would meet to decide what to do if Iraq does not comply with the resolution.
For a timeline, go here.
Sources: A U.N. press release of the Feb. 14 briefing is on-line here. The U.N. Security Council resolution approved on Nov. 8, 2002 is on-line here. The CIA's World Factbook entry on Iraq is on-line here. The State Department's December 2001 country background note on Iraq is available via the State Department's website, located here. President Bush's Sept. 12, 2002 speech to the United Nations is available on-line here. Michael R. Gordon and David E. Sanger, Powell says US is weighing ways to topple Hussein, New York Times, February 13, 2002. Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger, U.S. envisions blueprint on Iraq including big invasion next year, New York Times, April 28, 2002. Steven R. Weisman, How Powell lined up votes, starting with his President's, New York Times, Nov. 8, 2002. The International Atomic Energy Agency has made press information on its inspections available on-line here. Julia Preston, U.N. Inspectors criticize Iraqis over arms list, New York Times, January 10, 2003. Eric Schmitt, U.S. force in Gulf is said to be rising to 150,000 troops, New York Times, January 12, 2003.
Iraq : Timeline (last updated September 16, 2003) (back to top)
Periods : 2003, 2002, 1993-2000, 1990-1992, 1979-1989
2001 - 03
- 1979-1989 (back to top of timeline)
- 1979 : Saddam Hussein assumes power, the chosen successor to Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr.
- 1980-88 : Iraq and neighboring Iran fight a protracted war over territorial boundaries. Iraq declares victory in 1988.
- 1990-1992 (back to top of timeline)
- August 1990 : Iraq invades the neighboring country of Kuwait. The United Nations Security Council imposes sanctions on Iraq for its invasion.
- February 1991 : A U.S.-led coalition acting under U.N. resolutions expels Iraq from Kuwait.
- April 3, 1991 : The United Nations Security Council passes Resolution 687, which bars Iraq from having or retaining chemical weapons, biological weapons, ballistic missiles with a ranger greater than 150 kilometers (about 90 miles), and nuclear weapons. To ensure compliance, the Security Council creates a Special Commission (UNSCOM) to monitor Iraq's chemical weapons, biological weapons, and missiles, and it delegates nuclear inspections to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which created a special Iraq Action Team.
- April 1991 : NATO forces begin enforcing a no-fly zone in northern Iraq to provide cover for ground forces and humanitarian operations. This operation, Provide Comfort, officially ended in December 1996 and was replaced by Operation Northern Watch, which focused more on enforcing the northern no-fly zone rather than direct humanitarian assistance.
- August 1992 : NATO forces begin enforcing a no-fly zone in southern Iraq to protect the country's Shiite Muslim population.
- 1993-2000 (back to top of timeline)
- 1995 : Iraq agrees to participate in the United Nations' Oil for Food program, which was proposed shortly after the Gulf War. Under the program, Iraq exports billions of dollars worth of oil, which is to be used primarily for humanitarian efforts, with some going to international compensation efforts and to fund the UN's weapons monitoring program.
- December 1998 : UN inspectors leave Iraq, not to return until November 2002. For information about the status of their inspections as of this time, go here.
- December 16, 1998 : The United States and Britain initiate four days of air strikes against military targets in Iraq.
- December 17, 1999 : The U.N. Security Council creates the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to assume the duties of the Special Commission (UNSCOM). Hans Blix is later appointed head.
- 2002 (back to top of timeline)
- January 29, 2002 : In his annual State of the Union address, President George W. Bush describes Iraq as one of several states constituting an "axis of evil" because of its search for weapons of mass destruction (see text here). This begins a year-long campaign to build domestic support for using military force against Iraq.
- September 12, 2002 : President George W. Bush speaks before the United Nations, demanding Iraq's compliance with weapon inspections and other policy changes.
- October 16, 2002 : President George W. Bush signs into law a Congressional resolution that authorizes the use of military force against Iraq. The House approved the measure on October 10 with a 296-133 vote, and the Senate approved it the next day with a 77-23 vote.
- November 8, 2002 : The United Nations Security Council unanimously approves Resolution No. 1441, in which Iraq is given a "final opportunity" to comply with its disarmament obligations. Iraq is to make a "full, accurate and complete" declaration of all its weapons of mass destruction in order to avoid further U.N. action and "serious consequences."
- November 13, 2002 : Iraq agrees to "deal with" the U.N. resolution and to allow inspectors into the country, despite the resolution's "iniquitous contents" and the "bad faith" of the United States and Britain in seeking it. Iraq did not explicitly say it would grant inspectors full access, and indicated that it would supervise inspectors' conduct to ensure that it would be "lawful and professional."
- November 27, 2002 : Inspectors from the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) begin their first inspections in Iraq since 1998.
- December 7, 2002 : Iraq provides to the United Nations its 12,000-page declaration.
- 2003 (back to top of timeline)
- January 27, 2003 : Weapons inspectors make their first comprehensive report to the Security Council. UNMOVIC head Hans Blix says that Iraq had "cooperated rather well so far" with inspections and that its 12,000-page declaration submitted in December 2002 contained a "good deal" of new information. IAEA head Mohamed Elbaradei says that no evidence had been found that Iraq revived its nuclear-weapons program since eliminating it in the early 1990s, and that there could be "credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program" within the next few months. Summary available via the United Nations here.
- January 28, 2003 : President George W. Bush again calls for action against Iraq in his State of the Union address. For the relevant text, go here.
- February 5, 2003 : U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell speaks before the United Nations Security Council to re-iterate Iraq's failure to reach sincere disarmament and to share additional information possessed by the United States. Powell plays audio tapes and satellite images that he said showed Iraqi forces moving and hiding equipment in November 2002 just before inspectors re-entered the country. Text available on-line here.
- February 14, 2003 : Weapons inspectors report to the U.N. Security Council that Iraq was cooperating with inspections, that they had found no weapons of mass destruction, but that many banned weapons were unaccounted for and could only be resolved with more cooperation from Iraq. UNMOVIC, the commission which looks into biological, chemical, and long-range missile weapons, reported that it had conducted more than 400 inspections since November, and the International Atomic Energy Agency reported conducting a total of 177 inspections. Hans Blix disputed Secretary of State Colin Powell's interpretation of satellite images used in Powell's Feb. 5 presentation. A U.N. press release of the briefing is on-line here.
- February 15, 2003 : Worldwide protests.
- March 1, 2003 : Turkey's Parliament votes 264-251 against allowing the entry of American forces; the United States wants to use Turkey as a base for a northern front from which to invade Iraq. For more on Turkey, go here.
- March 5, 2003 : France, Germany and Russia announce that they would oppose any new Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.
- March 6, 2003 : President George W. Bush holds a rare prime-time news conference to address the war on terrorism and the looming war on Iraq. Transcript available on-line here.
- March 7, 2003 : In a report to the Security Council, UNMOVIC head Hans Blix reports that Iraq has begun cooperating more fully and has begun destroying the long-range Al-Samoud 2 missiles, and that even if Iraq was to cooperate immediately and fully, verification would take months. IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei reports that nuclear-weapons inspectors have found no indication that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program or that Iraq had attempted to import uranium since 1990. The United Kingdom circulates an amendment that would require Iraq to comply with Resolution 1441 before March 17. Details of the meeting are on-line here.
- March 17, 2003 : With Security Council approval unlikely, the United States, the United Kingdom and Spain withdraw a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution from consideration. President George W. Bush then issues an ultimatum at 8 p.m. EST that Saddam Hussein and his sons leave Iraq within 48 hours or face military action (a transcript of the remarks is on-line here). United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan begins withdrawing U.N. personnel, including weapons inspectors, from Iraq. The United States elevates its threat level to high/orange in preparation of possible retaliatory actions.
- March 19, 2003 : The United States initiates military action against Iraq, beginning with a bombing attack about an hour and a half after the 8 p.m. deadline for Hussein and his sons to leave the country.
- May 1, 2003 : President George W. Bush declares an end to major combat operations in Iraq. Speech available on-line here.
- September 7, 2003 : President George W. Bush announces that he will (1) seek UN authorization for a multinational force led by the United States in Iraq and (2) ask Congress for a $87 billion appropriation ($51 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and $20 billion for rebuilding efforts in Iraq, $11 billion for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and $800 million for rebuilding efforts there). He says that 42 of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders are dead or in custody and says that attacks on U.S. forces are mostly limited to the central region of Iraq. Speech on-line here.
Leak Investigation (last updated October 5, 2003) (back to top)
The U.S. Department of Justice's ongoing investigation into the apparent disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity is the latest development in a controversy surrounding a statement President George W. Bush made in his 2003 State of the Union about Iraq's alleged threat to the international community.
Bush's statement and its undoing
In his State of the Union speech on January 28, 2003, Bush presented evidence that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. One line in particular has stood out : "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (see statement with full text here).
Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV questioned the veracity of this statement with a July 6, 2003 op-ed piece in the New York Times in which he described his role in investigating - and discrediting - Niger's suspected link to Iraq's weapons program. Days later, CIA Director George Tenet issued a statement that the reference to Africa was suspect and should not have been presented to Bush.
"Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President's State of the Union speech," Tenet wrote. CIA officials investigated such allegations in late 2001 and early 2002 and concluded that the allegations were dubious, Tenet wrote. Subsequent reliance on a British report that concluded otherwise "should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and [the] CIA should have ensured that it was removed."
Lingering controversy becomes an investigation
The controversy over this statement then became something bigger stemming from a July 14, 2003 piece by columnist Robert Novak. There, Novak discussed Wilson's Niger investigation and identified Wilson's wife as an "Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction" and wrote that "two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegations. Novak later wrote that he did not receive a planned leak and that he simply put together some information and made an imprecise word choice.
Some have said that Novak's identification as to Wilson's wife shows that White House officials violated federal law against the disclosure of identities of U.S. covert agents. Democrats have called for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate the matter; such positions have sometimes been used to investigate high-level executive-branch officials, but the decision to use one is up to the Attorney General since the expiration of the prior independent counsel law in 1999 (for more on independent counsels, go here).
The Department of Justice reportedly has begun investigating the leak and has asked the White House staff to retain materials relevant to the apparent disclosure. President George W. Bush told reporters on Sept. 30 that he felt the Justice Department could investigate the matter properly without need of a special counsel and that he would punish anyone who did leak classified information.
Sources: Go here for an annotated version of Bush's January 28, 2003 State of the Union address. CIA Director George J. Tenet's July 11, 2003 statement about the State of the Union reference is on-line here. Joseph C. Wilson 4th, What I didn't find in Africa, New York Times, July 6, 2003. Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column, Mission to Niger, is available on-line here and an October 1, 2003 follow-up is available on-line here. Bush's Sept. 30 comments to reporters is on-line here.
U.S. Casualties in Iraq (last updated August 27, 2003) (back to top)
Despite the declared end of "major combat operations" in Iraq, U.S. military personnel are still being killed in action and as a result of intentional actions directed against them. About 91 people died as a result of such actions during the "major combat operations" phase of U.S. military operations in Iraq, and about 58 people died in comparable situations in the nearly four months since. Counting deaths not related to combat, the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq during the post-combat operations phase surpassed those in the "major combat operations" phase in late August 2003.
The following graph tracks the number of U.S. military casualties in Iraq since the beginning of the war in March 2003 through July 2003.
The war in Iraq began on March 19, 2003 with bombing attacks intended to kill Saddam Hussein. The war proceeded relatively quickly, and just over a month later, President George W. Bush declared an end to "major combat operations," but not the war itself, on May 1, 2003. During this period, 91 members of the U.S. military were killed in action in Iraq, according to a survey of press releases issued by the Department of Defense.
Since that period and a temporary lull, armed resistance against the United States' military presence seems to have revived. Five members of the U.S. military were killed in May 2003, 16 were killed in June, 27 were killed in July, and 10 were killed as of late August, again according to a survey of press releases issued by the Department of Defense.
As for the number of Iraqi deaths resulting from the war, various organizations have tried to tally the number of such deaths. The Associated Press reported in June 2003 that at least 3,240 civilians died because of the war between March 20 and April 20, and the Los Angeles Times reported in May 2003 that at least 1,700 civilians died with possibly a thousand more.
Sources: Press releases about U.S. military casualties are available through the Department of Defense's news archive on-line here. President George W. Bush's May 1, 2003 declaration that major combat operations had ended in Iraq is on-line here. Information about Iraqi deaths resulting from the war is on-line here; the AP's survey is on-line here.
Debate over US Role in Iraq Post-War (last updated September 16, 2003) (back to top)
With about 130,000 US military personnel in Iraq and with attacks continuing against US forces more than four months after President George W. Bush declared an end to military operations there, debate continues as to how the United States will sustain its efforts in Iraq.
No serious political leader in the United States believes that removing troops entirely from Iraq at this time would be advisable, given the current instability and the potential growing influence from fundamentalist Muslims opposed to the United States. The effort now has turned to how the United States can get more support from other countries and how the United States can best deploy its resources in Iraq.
President George W. Bush announced on September 7, 2003 that he will seek an explicit mandate from the United Nations for a multinational force in Iraq, a requirement of countries such as Pakistan, Turkey and India before they will send forces to supplement the United States' efforts. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said in a Senate Armed Services committee hearing two days later that Bush's decision to seek such a mandate was "long overdue" and that "the administration's task is now much more difficult because it delayed so long. Their go-it-alone chickens are coming home to roost."
As of early September, about 23,000 troops from a total of 29 countries were assisting the US occupation effort, but the United Kingdom alone provided more than half. Moreover, international forces were generally stationed in stable areas, not the trouble spots that have resulted in attacks against US forces. "On the whole, with, I say, the exception of the British in Basra, the international troops are going into areas that are relatively stable," Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said in a Sept. 9, 2003 Senate hearing.
In his Sept. 7, 2003 address, Bush also asked for $51 billion in funds for military operations in Iraq, on top of the $62.6 billion appropriated in April 2003 for military and rebuilding efforts.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the United States can not sustain an occupation force of the present size beyond March 2004 and that a smaller occupation force that it anticipated based on current army plans would cost $8 billion to $12 billion a year.
Sources: Bush's September 7, 2003 address to the nation is on-line here; a fact sheet breaking down the $86 billion request announced in that address is on-line here. A transcript of the September 9, 2003 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in which Sen. Carl Levin and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz discuss the Bush request is on-line here. The Congressional Budget Office's September 3, 2003 letter to Sen. Robert Byrd is on-line here.
The Cost of U.S. Operations in Iraq (last updated September 16, 2003) (back to top)
The current projected cost of U.S. military operations in Iraq and rebuilding efforts there seems to be about $150 billion, already towards the high end of some unofficial pre-war estimates.
In mid-April 2003, about a month into military operations in Iraq, Congress authorized $62.6 billion for military and rebuilding operations. At that time, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Dov Zakheim said that the war had already cost more than $20 billion and that "we believe that this $62 billion is going to go a very, very long way, to the end of the fiscal year."
In a September 7, 2003 address to the nation, President George W. Bush announced that the U.S. strategy in Iraq would require $71 billion in "new resources" for Iraq. According to Bush, this request will cover "ongoing military and intelligence operations" in Iraq ($51 billion) and support rebuilding efforts in Iraq ($20 billion). It was not clear from Bush's speech how long these resources are expected to last. Bush also requested $12 billion for similar military and rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan.
In a Senate Armed Services committee hearing two days later, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) called Bush's request a "bitter bill for the American people to swallow" when domestic budgetary requests were not fulfilled or had been cut and when the costs of the war seem to be nearing the high end of pre-war estimates that had been "denounced" by the Bush administration.
The Bush administration resisted making public estimates as to cost before beginning military operations in Iraq, noting that there were too many variables such as the length of the war and what actions Saddam Hussein might take. Some estimates compared the cost to the 1991 Persian Gulf war that cost a broad coalition about $60 billion. Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey estimated at one time that the war could cost $100 to 200 billion.
There were about 130,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq as of early September. According to the Defense Department, the occupation costs about $4 billion a month to sustain at the current levels. The Congressional Budget Office reported in a September 3, 2003 letter to Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) that the army could not sustain an occupation force of the present size beyond March 2004 and that a smaller occupation force that it anticipated based on current army plans would cost $8 billion to $12 billion a year.
Sources: Bush's September 7, 2003 address to the nation is on-line here; a fact sheet breaking down the $86 billion request announced in that address is on-line here. A transcript of the September 9, 2003 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in which Sen. Carl Levin and others discuss the Bush request is on-line here. Under Secretary of Defense Dov Zakheim's April 16, 2003 press briefing in which he discussed the cost of the war is on-line here. Dana Bash, What would war with Iraq cost?, CNN (January 2, 2003). The Congressional Budget Office's September 3, 2003 letter to Sen. Robert Byrd is on-line here.
Iraq and al-Qaida (last updated February 17, 2003) (back to top)
In trying to build support for military action against Iraq, the United States has tried drawing a link between Iraq and the Islamic fundamentalist group al-Qaida, and it has argued that Iraq could supply weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida for use against the United States.
Both Iraq and al-Qaida do consider the United States an enemy, but the two ultimately have different goals. While Saddam Hussein obviously wants to retain power and wraps himself in the trappings of Islam, al-Qaeda wants Arab countries such as Iraq to overthrow secular leaders such as Hussein in favor of more fundamentalist regimes.
In an audio tape message broadcast in mid-February 2003, Osama Bin Laden himself called for resistance against the United States' plans to invade Iraq. But while Bin Laden did refer to "our Iraqi mugahedeen brothers in Iraq," he did not offer support for Hussein himself, calling his government "ignorant" and socialist.
"We stress the loyal intentions that the fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq," Bin Laden said. "The Muslims as a whole, and in Iraq in particular, should pull up their sleeves and carry jihad against this oppressive offense and to make sure to stock up on ammunition and arms. This is a duty for them. It does not hurt that in the current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders, taking into account our belief and declaration of the apostasy of the socialists."
Secretary of State Colin Powell tried drawing a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda in his Feb. 5, 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council, focusing largely on Iraq's alleged harboring of a terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an "associate and collaborator" of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and on contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida.
"We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us that Bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service," Powell said.
"Some believe, some claim, these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and al-Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaida together, enough so al-Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that al-Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction."
Similarly, in his 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush used a hypothetical link between Hussein and al-Qaida to argue for military action against Iraq. "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own," he said.
Led by Saddam Hussein since 1979, Iraq is a predominantly Muslim country (more than 95 percent), with Shi'a Muslims comprising about 65 percent and Sunni Muslims another 35 percent. Iraq's government is secular and power is concentrated entirely in the Arab Ba'th Socialist Party that is dominated by Hussein and his extended family.
Iraq has fought its most recent wars over territorial boundaries. From 1980 to 1988, Iraq and neighboring Iran were at war over territorial boundaries. In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait but were ousted by a US-led coalition acting under UN resolutions in early 1991. Since then, the United States and the United Nations have taken various measures to limit Hussein's power and, ideally, to bring about an internal change in regime.
al-Qaeda was founded by Osama Bin Laden around 1990 to bring together Arabs who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet invasion and were trained by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency. al-Qaeda has been described by the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization whose goal is to "establish the Muslim state" throughout the world, overthrow Western-oriented governments in Muslim countries, and drive the United States and other Western powers from the Arabian peninsula.
al-Qaeda was headquartered in the Sudan from the early 1990s until about 1996 but maintained offices in various parts of the world. The organization relocated to Afghanistan in 1996, the same year the Taliban took power. Taliban-led Afghanistan was just one of a handful of conservative Islamist states and was recognized by only three countries : Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
For more on Iraq, go here. For more on al-Qaida and the Taliban, go here.
Sources: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's Feb. 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council is on-line here. Reuters, Bin Laden's message : fight the crusaders, New York Times, February 15, 2003.
Iraq : Weapons Inspections (last updated February 15, 2002) (back to top)
Iraq's lack of cooperation with weapons inspectors since 1991 led to several political crises in 1998, culminating with the US and UK air strikes in December of that year (Operation Desert Fox). UN weapons inspectors have not been allowed into Iraq since 1998, but its last reports show that Iraq had already been developing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons for many years. In his January 2002 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush specifically referred to Iraq's failure to comply with weapon inspections as a reason why Iraq was part of an "axis of evil" (for the actual text, go here).
With the end of the Gulf War, the UN Security Council established restrictions on Iraq's weapons capacities. Resolution 687 (1991) barred Iraq from having or retaining chemical weapons, biological weapons, ballistic missiles with a ranger greater than 150 kilometers (about 90 miles), and nuclear weapons. To ensure compliance, the Security Council created a Special Commission (UNSCOM) to monitor Iraq's chemical weapons, biological weapons, and missiles, and it delegated nuclear inspections to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which created a special Iraq Action Team.
All these inspections have met with difficulty, beginning with Iraq's unilateral destruction in the summer of 1991 of ballistic missiles and chemical weapons, a violation of the Security Council's resolution. Inspectors have had difficulties gaining full access to sites and to documents, and such problems threatened several times to lead to military action. UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter even quit in August 1998, saying that the US and UK were pressuring UNSCOM to ease up on Iraq in order to avoid intra-state conflicts.
Finally, the inspection problems culminated with the military strikes of December 1998. Since then, Iraq has not allowed any inspections, even though the UN re-organized inspection procedures in December 1999, replacing UNSCOM with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), an agency that is more independent of member states. (NOTE: The IAEA has conducted nuclear inspections in Iraq since 1998 , but only pursuant to the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and not under UN resolutions. These inspections are not directly related to weapons inspections).
Specific information on each of the four inspection efforts follows, based on the last reports filed by UNSCOM and the IAEA's Iraq Action Team:
- Biological weapons. Iraq denied having a biological warfare program until, confronted by UNSCOM evidence, it admitted in July 1995 that it had produced in the 1980s industrial-scale quantities of two biological warfare agents (one was anthrax) though it denied having any thought of weaponization. After Lt. General Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, defected from the country and provided documents that showed that Iraq had developed weapons far beyond what it had allowed inspectors to see and that it was continuing such activities, Iraq admitted in August 1995 that it had weaponized BW agents and had deployed them for use. Still, Iraq has claimed that its BW program was obliterated in 1991.
- Chemical weapons. Iraq destroyed "a significant number" of chemical weapons under UNSCOM supervision from 1991 to 1997. However, UNSCOM reported having "less confidence" in Iraq's statements that it had unilaterally destroyed or lost many weapons, including 500 bombs that may have contained biological warfare agents, 550 shells filled with mustard that, if still existing, would be of high enough quality to be combat-ready.
- Long-range ballistic missiles. Iraq disclosed having some such missiles in 1991 and destroyed them with the supervision of UNSCOM. However, in March 1992, Iraq admitted that it had withheld "a considerable amount of proscribed weapons" and said that it had destroyed these weapons unilaterally in 1991, in violation of Resolution 687. Since then, despite informing the Security Council in November 1993 that it would accept obligations to destroy or remove all ballistic missiles, Iraq has provided disclosures that UNSCOM has called inadequate. In December 1998, UNSCOM reported that Iraq had undertaken covert activities including retaining production equipment, working on proscribed missile components, and concealing missile projects and facilities.
- Nuclear weapons. Nuclear inspections were conducted by the IAEA's Iraq Action Team from 1991 to 1998. The inspections revealed that Iraq had a clandestine nuclear program as of December 1998, and that the program was aimed at producing nuclear weapons, was well-funded and well-staffed, and had been implemented in the 1980s. The team concluded that Iraq had achieved many major steps towards producing a nuclear weapon but had not done so by December 1998.
Sources: The UNSCOM's last report on Iraq's biological and chemical weapons is on-line here. The International Atomic Energy Agency is on-line here; a fact-sheet on Iraq's nuclear weapons program is here.
Iraq : Embargo, Sanctions, and Oil for Food (last updated February 16, 2002) (back to top)
Perhaps the most controversial measure imposed by the international community on Iraq is the set of economic sanctions in place since August 1990, when the Security Council imposed sanctions in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Critics blame the sanctions for causing a humanitarian crisis in Iraq, noting especially the high level of infant mortality. Others say that Saddam Hussein has used the sanctions for propaganda, blaming them instead of allocating the country's resources better.
The World Health Organization has reported that the death rate for children has tripled since 1990, and a 1997 UNICEF report indicated that more than a quarter of children under age 5 are malnourished. According to UNICEF's annual report on the state of children, the 2000 infant mortality rate in Iraq is 130 deaths before age 5 for every 1,000 live births, or about 13 percent. This rate is about twice that of other Middle Eastern countries, on par with countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and is the 34th highest in the world (the United States, by contrast, has a rate of 8 deaths per 1,000, ranked 159 among state rates).
Many have debated the cause of such conditions, either blaming the sanctions directly or accusing Iraq's government of allowing these conditions due to mismanagement and for propaganda purposes. Notably, in October 1998, UN Assistant Secretary-General and Chief UN Relief Co-ordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest at the impact of sanctions on the Iraqi population.
In any case, economic sanctions have been moderated somewhat in recent years by the United Nations' Oil for Food program, which has been operating since December 1996 and has been renewed every six months. Shortly after the Gulf War, the UN proposed measures that would have enabled Iraq to sell limited quantities of its oil in order to fund humanitarian efforts. Iraq has more than 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest supply in the world behind Saudi Arabia.
Iraq refused such measures in the early 1990s but finally agreed in 1995 to participate. The first oil was exported in December 1996 and the first food imported under the program arrived in March 1997. By December 2001, Iraq had exported 2.9 billion barrels of oil, worth about $12.6 billion. Revenue mostly goes to humanitarian efforts in Iraq, with some going to international compensation efforts and, since December 2000, to fund the United Nations' weapons monitoring program.
Still, because the distribution of this revenue is controlled by the United Nations, and not by Iraq itself, and with higher oil prices creating more incentives for sidestepping the overall embargo, smuggling has been increasing. According to estimates, averaged about 50,000 barrels of oil were illegally exported a day in 1998 and about 100,000 barrels a day by February 2000. This amount brings in millions of dollars a month, but still accounts for less than five percent of overall Iraqi oil exports.
The US-led Maritime Interdiction Force, created in 1990, monitors ships in the Persian Gulf to prevent oil smuggling. As of a State Department briefing in February 2000, the MIF has queried more than 28,000 vessels by radio, boarded more than 12,000, and diverted 700 for violating UN sanctions during its ten-year existence. Still, Vice Admiral Charles Moore, commander of the international force and commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet, said in April 2000 that the MIF stops only three to five percent of smugglers.
Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 665, ships smuggling Iraqi oil can be diverted to a Gulf port to have its oil unloaded and sold, with the proceeds going to the United Nations. Crews are usually repatriated home with no penalties. Because the main penalty is confiscation of the vessels, vessels are not of high quality and pose a high risk for oil spills.
Sources: UNICEF's annual report on the state of the world's children is available on-line here; the report on under-five mortality rankings is on-line here. State Department reports on illegal oil smuggling, such as James Foley's February 3, 2000 briefing, available on-line here. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration December 1999 report on Iraq, available on-line here. Statement of General Tommy R. Franks, commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, before Senate Armed Services Committee, September 19, 2000.
Iraq : No-Fly Zone (last updated January 23, 2002) (back to top)
Since April 1991, the United States and England have conducted surveillance operations in Iraq north of the 36-degree north parallel. In August 1992, the United States and England expanded their operations to cover Iraqi territory south of the 32-degree north parallel. France participated in these operations until December 1996.
Both operations, respectively named Northern Watch and Southern Watch, have been justified as humanitarian missions designed to prevent Iraq from using air forces to bomb and otherwise oppress the country's minority populations, the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the South. They have also served as useful devices to monitor Iraqi forces for any buildup.
With the end of the Gulf War in 1991, the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq tried rebelling against Saddam Hussein but soon found themselves without the support they had been promised by the United States. Up to three million Kurds then fled for Iran and Turkey to avoid reprisals, creating a refugee crisis. In response, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 588 on April 5, 1991, condemning Iraq's repression of its civilian population and demanding that it cease doing so. That month, NATO forces began enforcing a no-fly zone in northern Iraq to provide cover for ground forces and humanitarian operations. This operation, Provide Comfort, officially ended in December 1996 and was replaced by Operation Northern Watch, which focused more on enforcing the northern no-fly zone rather than direct humanitarian assistance.
The southern counterpart, Southern Watch, began in August 1992 to protect the Shiite Muslim population in southern Iraq.
Iraq has occasionally challenged the no-fly zones with exchanges of firepower. It has done so regularly since late 1998 when, after four days of US and UK military strikes designed to punish Iraq's lack of cooperation with weapon inspectors, Iraq announced it would no longer recognize the no-fly zones and shot at coalition aircraft with surface-to-air missiles. It has continued to do so since then.
Some have questioned the legal basis for the no-fly zones. The United States and England justify the operations as humanitarian operations based on UN Security Council Resolution 688, but others have said that such humanitarian intervention is of dubious legality. Iraq has called the no-fly zones illegal and an act of aggression, and Russia has expressed its negative attitude to the zones as well.
Sources: The Federation of American Scientists maintains pages on Operation Northern Watch, Operation Southern Watch, and on Operation Provide Comfort. United Nations Security Council resolutions can be found via the United Nations' website, available here.
Turkey (last updated March 3, 2003) (back to top)
The Muslim country of Turkey has long received the support of the United States and been its ally, but the relationship between the two countries is facing a strain as Turkey balances that relationship against widespread domestic opposition to a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. On March 1, 2003, Turkey's Parliament voted 264-251 against allowing the entry of American forces, but may bring the vote up again for reconsideration.
Turkey has been an ally to the United States since the 1940s and a member of NATO since 1952. Bridging Europe and Central Asia, it is the easternmost member of NATO and the only member that is predominantly Muslim, though the country is officially secular. The country is a democracy under its 1982 Constitution; it was created in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Turkey's precarious position has become more prominent as the United States prepares to invade Iraq for its alleged non-compliance with U.N. resolutions calling for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. The United States wants to deploy up to 62,000 troops to Turkey as a base for invading Iraq, and has reportedly tied $6 billion in economic aid to Turkey's military assistance.
NATO members negotiated throughout February in order to authorize defending Turkey from Iraqi military action. On February 10, 2003, Turkey officially invoked Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which requires that NATO members consult whenever a NATO member's security or integrity is threatened. France, Germany and Belgium initially opposed granting NATO such authorization, but on February 19, 2003, NATO's Defense Planning Committee did authorize defensive measures.
Sources: The State Department's background notes on Turkey are on-line here, and the CIA's World Factbook entry on Turkey is on-line here; the map is adapted from one available via the State Department here. A NATO chronology of the February 2003 discussions about measures to protect Turkey is on-line here. Dexter Filkins, Turkish deputies refuse to accept American troops, New York Times, March 2, 2003.
|
|
|
Index / Home
FootnoteTV
Footnote Fahrenheit
Footnote Media
Issues
Cases
Resources
Footnote Comics
Site FAQ
Search via Google
Election 2004
Issues
|
|