Wikipedia

Iraq disarmament crisis

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vera Cruz (talk | contribs) at 22:09, 10 January 2003 (nuclear weapons). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

During most of 2002, the United States government called for regime change in Iraq, with or without the endorsement of the UN. It has stated that it is considering invading Iraq for the following reasons:

  1. to overthrow Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and replace it with a government that supports democracy and human rights
  2. to force Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, a task Iraq insists it has already done, but the United States claims to have overwhelming evidence to the contrary, which cannot be revealed for national security purposes

Critics argue that the invasion has very little to do with either of the above-stated reasons, rather, the US has only one reason:

  1. increase control over the MidEast oilfields

Whether Iraq actually has weapons of mass destruction or not is being investigated by Hans Blix, head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. Saddam Hussein has accused the weapon inspectors of being spies and says his country is prepared for war. Blix has complained that the United States and the United Kingdom have not presented him with the evidence, which they claim to posess, regarding Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.[1]

Constitutional Issues

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate held hearings on the proposed invasion July 31 and August 1, 2002. Richard Butler, who headed the previous weapons inspection team into Iraq (UNSCOM), testified that Iraq did indeed pose a threat. Other issues discussed were cost (The 1991 Gulf War cost the allies about $60 billion.), whether or not former allies of the United States from the Gulf War would support the invasion, and whether or not congressional approval was legally necessary to authorize an invasion.

Bush's legal advisors argue that the administration has the legal authority under United States law to invade Iraq without the approval of Congress. The Constitution grants the power of declaring war to Congress, but past presidents, particularly since World War II, have often ordered military action in the absence of such a declaration. In 1973, amid increasing domestic controversy about the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to limit the ability of the president to undertake prolonged military action. No president since has recognized the constitutionality of this act, and most legal scholars believe it would not survive a challenge in court. Moreover, even if congressional approval were required, the Bush administration may argue that approval has already been granted by the Persian Gulf Resolution of January 12, 1991, and the resolution of September 14, 2001, which authorized military action against terrorism. The position under international law is also controversial.

Iraqi opposition groups

In early August of 2002, Dick Cheney met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition groups, pledging that the Bush Administration intended to replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic government. Dick Cheney, in his role as Vice President of the United States, has taken the lead in advocating an invasion, maintaining that it is foolish to wait until Iraq has completed construction of a nuclear weapon. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay have also been vocal in urging an invasion.

The coup option

It would be difficult, some argue, for the United States to remove Saddam Hussein from power short of a full-scale invasion. Saddam's whereabouts are kept secret, making an assassination attempt difficult. An internal military coup is improbable, given that Saddam has surrounded himself with Republican Guard troops, the most loyal, best trained, and best equipped troops in the country.

Military preparations

A classified document detailing military options for an invasion was prepared for President Bush by American military planners prior to his speech on September 12, 2002 at the United Nations calling for a UN Security Council resolution. [2] Military planning for an invasion seems to focus on an intensive bombing campaign followed by a land invasion in the winter by troops based in Kuwait. Depending on the degree of international support, especially as reflected in a Security Council resolution additional resources may be available in Saudi Arabia, eastern Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and possibly Kurdish areas in northern Iraq. In the case of Qatar, despite being the site of an American base, the government has expressed its opposition to participating in an invasion although no actual request has been made of it by the United States.

Turkey is also beginning to show reservations, fearing that a power vacuum after Saddam's defeat will give rise to a Kurdish state. Turkey, however, has agreed to allow U.S. use of the air base at Incirlik, and allowing the U.S. to investigate possible use of airports at Gaziantep, Malatya, and Diyabakir, as well, as the seaports of Antalya and Mersi.

In December 2002, Turkey moved approximately 15,000 soldiers to the border with Iraq. The Turkish General Staff stated that this move was in light of recent developments and did not indicate an attack was imminent.

Australia is committing a 150-strong Special Air Services squadron, three naval vessels, F/A-18 Hornet fighter-bombers, and P-3C Orion aircraft.

Britain tentatively is sending 40,000 men from the British Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force, including the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal. The ground component will include 100 Challenger tanks.

United States Order of Battle

Units expected to be mobilized are:

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

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

The Coalition force is eventually expected to be 250,000 strong. This force is half the size of the force used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Newer developments in combat communications and weapons systems, however, should increase Coalition combat effectiveness.

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


Air Attack: The First Phase of the War

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

The development of precision guided munitions, especially the JDAM series of munitions, has changed American doctrine on an attack in Iraq. Targets are similar to those struck in 1991 -- air defense radars, missiles, and command-and-control posts, power distribution, and the road network in Iraq -- but JDAM munitions allow a greater degree of precision, and an ability to bomb through cloud cover. In addition, several classes of targets hit in 1991 may not be hit again because of the side effects which harm civilians unnecessarily.

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

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

In addition to the use of the B-2s, RQ-4 Global Hawk and RQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicles will be able to provide real-time observation of the Iraqi battlefield. The Iraqi Air Force downed a Predator in late December 2002. The UAV, however, is easily replaceable. The E-8 JSTARS radar system will enable American and Coalition observers to track individual Iraqi tanks and trucks and to identify where units are going.

Ground Attack: The Second Phase

The most likely avenue of approach to Baghdad from Kuwait involves moving from the highway from Kuwait to the capital, seizing the southern city of Basra on the way. This is also the most likely area a mobile Iraqi defense would take. However, to defend against a Coalition armored column, Iraq would need air superiority over the battle zone. This is not likely.

A second approach involves operating from Kurdish-held areas in the north of Iraq. However, the terrain does not favor armor as well as the southern approach. The Iraqi Kurds have approximately 65,000 well-disciplined but lightly-armed soldiers, whose use would enable American or British forces to move without worry of flank security.

A sweep from across the Saudi border, as in General Schwarzkopf's "Hail Mary" plan of 1991, is not likely unless the Saudi government cooperates fully with the U.S.

Finally a small invasion force attempting to quickly seize Baghdad runs a serious risk of failure, as Iraq appears to be fortifying the capital for street to street fighting. However, it appears likely that the Coalition forces will not try street fighting.

Possible Iraqi Defenses and Countermoves

The key units Iraq depends on to stop the Coalition are six Republican Guard divisions (strength: 85,000), two Special Republican Guard brigades, two Special Forces brigades (strength: 15,000), and internal security forces. The Iraqi Army is 300,000 strong, but is expected to have limited combat effectiveness because the government of Saddam Hussein does not trust their loyalty.

Press reports indicate that Iraq is likely to abandon fighting in the open field and assume a defensive posture around its major cities, in particular Baghdad. However, the U.S./U.K. forces may simply bypass the cities and occupy the routes into the cities, forcing a siege.

Other press reports indicate Iraq may attempt a scorched earth tactic, destroying oil fields, bridges, electrical, water and sewage facilities as the forces retreat. This would impede U.S./U.K. forces in moving, and force a large committment of supplies and services to provide basic services to Iraqi civilians, as required by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

Iraqi forces may use chemical or biological agents on U.S./U.K. forces concentrated on the battlefield. However, the U.S. government has stated such use would be countered by American nuclear weapons, as per American military doctrine.

Effect on Civilians

The attack will likely cause shortages of clean water and sanitation, placing an estimated 10 million Iraqi noncombatants at risk of famine and disease (measles, dysentery, typhoid and cholera). The US government expects millions to flee Baghdad and central Iraq, for the south and possibly Iran.

Should the US use nuclear weapons, has it has threatened to do, the effect on the civilian population will be quite detrimental.

Bush Doctrine

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

United Nations responses to US plans

On September 12, 2002, Bush, speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations outlined the complaints of the United States against the Iraqi government, detailing Iraq's alleged noncompliance to the terms of 16 resolutions of the Security Council since the Gulf War in 1990. Specific areas of noncompliance alleged in this speech include:

Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with other members of the Security Council. In particular, three permanent members (with veto power) of the Council were known to have objections to an invasion of Iraq - Russia, China, and France. In the meantime, Iraq, while denying all charges, announced that it would permit the re-entry of United Nations arms inspectors into Iraq. This was viewed a ploy by the United States which continued to call for a Security Council resolution which would authorize the use of military force. On November 8, 2002, the UN passed new resolutions urging Iraq to disarm or face tough consequences. The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and even Arab countries like Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1992 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Hussein agreed to honor it.

On November 18, 2002, UN Weapons inspectors returned to Iraq for the first time in four years.

The US has stated five main demands of Iraq (see this Yahoo! news article):

On September 26, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld accused Iraq of harboring al Qaeda terrorists and aiding their quest for weapons of mass destruction. In early December, 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN. After reviewing the document, the U.S., France, Britain and other countries felt that this declaration failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents. On December 19 Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that Iraq was in material breach of the Security Council resolution.

Support for the proposed invasion

A number of Iraqi opposition groups have shown support for the potential U.S. led invasion, in spite of the fact that they find little else to agree on. Ahmad Chalabi, of the Iraqi National Congress told a Turkish news agency that they "do not see an operation as a war between Iraq and the United States. This will be a war to liberate Iraq. The opposition will play a great role.”

Early polls showed that the American people give qualified support for the administrations efforts. Some polls, like one conducted by Newsweek, have even suggested that the administration's policy with Iraq played a major role in the Republican's victory during the 2002 elections. However, a more recent poll has showed support has waned, with 72% of Americans saying that Bush has not provided enough evidence to justify starting a war with Iraq. [3])

Although some of them have changed their opinion in the last two years, in 1998, many key Democrats including President Bill Clinton, Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt were supporting the idea of destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, using force if necessary. In February of 1998, former President Clinton remarked "(Hussein's) regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act. Senate Democrats also passed Resolution 71, which urged President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's weapons of mass destruction programs." Plans were put on hold when Hussein agreed to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq. The plan was dropped entirely, in spite of the fact that weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq a few days later.

US Senator Joseph Lieberman said the U.S. military action against Iraq is justified, calling the inventory of arms the Iraqi government submitted on Saturday "a 12,000-page, 100-pound lie." [4]

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said on October 10, 2002 that Canada will be part of any military coalition sanctioned by the United Nations to invade Iraq. Yahoo! news article

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has frequently expressed support for the United States in this matter. However, public support is very divided. Many Members of Parliament have expressed objections to a war on Iraq, and even members of the government are believed to have reservations.

Public relations plans to support the proposed invasion

The Rendon Group, a Washington, DC based public relations firm with close ties to the US government, and which has had a prominent role in promoting the Iraqi National Congress, is alleged by some journalists to be planning to support the proposed invasion by a careful public relations campaign.

Such a campaign would be viewed by many with skepticism, recalling that the PR firm Hill & Knowlton supported the Gulf War in 1991 with a campaign including misinformation such as a false story of Iraqi soldiers' barbaric treatment of incubator babies. With such a history, caution is indicated in evaluating emotional claims justifying a war without considering their source.[5]

Psychological operations against Iraq

An U.S. Army psychological warfare group is operating in the region. United States and British aircraft have dropped leaflets on Iraqi cities and military positions, warning Iraqi soldiers not to fire on Coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone and not to support Saddam Hussein. In addition, EC-130 Commando Solo aircraft, equipped with mediumwave, shortwave and FM transmitters, have been broadcasting directly to the Iraqi people.

Opposition to the proposed invasion

An investigative report published by Knight-Ridder in early October of 2002 showed that US intelligence analysists had serious misgivings about invading Iraq. The report showed that intelligence officials largely found no evidence to support the Bush administration's position that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat, but they were being squelched, while at the same time the intelligence community was being placed under intense pressure to find justification for Bush's position. [6]

On September 13, 2002, US Catholic bishops signed a letter to President Bush stating that any "pre-emptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq" cannot currently be justified. They came to this position by evaluating whether an attack against Iraq would satisfy the criteria for a "just war", as defined by Catholic theology. [7]

The Vatican has also come out against war in Iraq. Archbishop Renato Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of the Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters last week that war against Iraq was a "preventative" war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not constitute a "just war." The foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, expressed concerns that a war in Iraq would inflame anti-Christian feelings in the Islamic world.

Both the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, and his replacement, Rowan Williams, have spoken out forcefully against war with Iraq.

On October 26, 2002, 200,000 Americans attended a protest rally in Washington, DC to express their opposition to war against Iraq.

As of August 2002, former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who believes U.N. inspections effectively verified the destruction of over 90% of Iraq's weapon capabilities, is actively campaigning against an invasion, and challenging the Bush administration to make public any evidence that Iraq has rebuilt the capabilities which were destroyed under the auspices of UNSCOM. Says Ritter, "If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof." However, critics of Ritter point out that four years earlier he had exactly the opposite view as inspectors were forced to leave Iraq. In 1998, upon leaving Iraq, Ritter sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming," Ritter said on August 27, 1998. and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." It is unclear why Ritter's opinion changed so drastically in four years without inspections.

Some nations that were allies of the United States during the Gulf War are either opposed to the projected US invasion or reluctant to help with it. Many argue that Iraq has no connection to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Others opposed to US military action argue that insufficient evidence has been produced of "an immediate threat" and accordingly such action would be contary to international law. On the other hand, proponents of war suggest that United Nations resolutions authorizing the Gulf War remain in effect and justify military action.

When President of the United States George W. Bush toured Europe in June, 2002, tens of thousands of people protested his presence. Most European leaders, with the notable exception of Tony Blair, oppose American action against Iraq; German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made his opposition to the invasion an issue in his electoral campaign, and some analysts credit Schroeder's come-from-behind victory on September 22 to tapping a broad anti-war sentiment among the German people.

Although a majority of people within the United States support an invasion to remove Hussein from power, there have also been numerous anti-war demonstrations in the country.

Several senior Republican leaders, including some within the Bush Administration, have expressed reservations about an invasion of Iraq.

  • Henry Kissinger (Secretary of State 1973-77) wrote in an August 12 editorial to The Washington Post that there is an imperative to preemptive action, but also warned of destabilizing the Middle East and of potential negative long-term consequences.
  • James A. Baker III (Secretary of State 1989-92), in an August 25 editorial to The New York Times, argued that the United States should first push for renewed weapons inspections, and if war is ultimately necessary, the U.S. should not "go it alone".
  • Lawrence Eagleburger (Secretary of State 1992-93) said on August 18 on Fox News Sunday that invasion was unjustified "unless the President can demonstrate to all of us that Saddam has his finger on a nuclear, biological or chemical trigger and he's about to use it".
  • Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor 1975-77, 89-93) argued in an August 15 editorial to the Wall Street Journal that an invasion would be costly and a distraction from more pressing issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war on terrorism.
  • Colin Powell (Secretary of State 2001-present) is not publicly disagreeing with Bush, but appears to be arguing behind the scenes that the U.S. must have a long-term plan for how to rebuild Iraq if and when Saddam is overthrown.

Some people say North Korea poses more of a threat, while at least Saddam is co-operating. Critics say the US is less interested in North Korea because the country has no oil.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_disarmament_crisis&oldid=577532"