History
Invasion Iraq
The invasion of Iraq refers to the military intervention led by the United States and its allies in 2003, which aimed to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. The invasion was justified on the grounds of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and promoting democracy in the region. However, it sparked significant controversy and had long-lasting consequences for Iraq and the broader Middle East.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
10 Key excerpts on "Invasion Iraq"
No longer available |Learn more- (Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- University Publications(Publisher)
________________________ WORLD TECHNOLOGIES ________________________ Chapter- 1 2003 Invasion of Iraq The 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 20 – May 1, 2003), was the start of the conflict known as the Iraq War or Operation Iraqi Freedom in which a combined force of troops from the United States, alongside the United Kingdom, and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations. This phase (March–April 2003) consisted of a conventionally fought war which concluded with the fall of Baghdad that marked the beginning of the second phase, the Iraq War which would last until August 31, 2010, and was followed by Operation New Dawn. This was considered a continuation of the Gulf War of 1991, prior to which Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait, and after defeat by Coalition Forces had agreed to surrender and/or destroy several types of weapons, including SCUD missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Since the Persian Gulf War 1991 the US and Britain had been keeping a tight rein on Saddam Hussein, waging an undeclared conflict against Iraq for twelve years. U.S. President Bill Clinton had maintained sanctions and ordered air strikes in the Iraqi no-fly zones Operation Desert Fox, in the hope that Saddam would be overthrown by political enemies inside Iraq and had signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. which appropriated funds to Iraqi opposition groups.Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 20 to May 1, 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 US troops were assembled in Kuwait by February 18. The United States supplied the vast majority of the invading forces, but also received support from Kurdish irregulars in Iraqi Kurdistan.
No longer available |Learn more- (Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- University Publications(Publisher)
________________________ WORLD TECHNOLOGIES ________________________ Chapter- 6 2003 Invasion of Iraq The 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 19–May 1, 2003), was the start of the conflict known as the Iraq War or Operation Iraqi Freedom in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom and smaller contingents f rom Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations. This phase (March–April 2003) consisted of a conventionally fought war which concluded with the fall of the Iraq capital Baghdad. This was considered a continuation of the Gulf War of 1991, prior to which Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait, and after defeat by Coalition Forces had agreed to surrender and/or destroy several types of weapons, including SCUD missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991 the U.S. and Britain had been keeping a tight rein on Saddam Hussein, waging an undeclared conflict against Iraq for twelve years. U.S. President Bill Clinton had maintained sanctions and ordered air strikes in the Iraqi no-fly zones with Operation Desert Fox, in the hope that Saddam would be overthrown by political enemies inside Iraq, and had signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act, which appropriated funds to Iraqi opposition groups. Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 19 to April 9, 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops were assembled in Kuwait by February 18. The United States supplied the majority of the invading forces, but also received support from Kurdish irregulars in Iraqi Kurdistan.
No longer available |Learn more- (Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- College Publishing House(Publisher)
________________________ WORLD TECHNOLOGIES ________________________ Chapter 6 2003 Invasion of Iraq The 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 20 – May 1, 2003), was the start of the conflict known as the Iraq War or Operation Iraqi Freedom in which a combined force of troops from the United States, alongside the United Kingdom, and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations. This phase (March–April 2003) consisted of a con-ventionally fought war which concluded with the fall of Baghdad that marked the beginning of the second phase, the Iraq War which would last until August 31, 2010, and was followed by Operation New Dawn. This was considered a continuation of the Gulf War of 1991, prior to which Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait, and after defeat by Coalition Forces had agreed to surrender and/or destroy several types of weapons, including SCUD missiles and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Since the Persian Gulf War 1991 the US and Britain had been keeping a tight rein on Saddam Hussein, waging an undeclared conflict against Iraq for twelve years. U.S. President Bill Clinton had maintained sanctions and ordered air strikes in the Iraqi no-fly zones Operation Desert Fox, in the hope that Saddam would be overthrown by political enemies inside Iraq and had signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. which appropriated funds to Iraqi opposition groups.Four countries participated with troops during the initial invasion phase, which lasted from March 20 to May 1, 2003. These were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000), and Poland (194). 36 other countries were involved in its aftermath. In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 US troops were assembled in Kuwait by February 18. The United States supplied the vast majority of the invading forces, but also received support from Kurdish irregulars in Iraqi Kurdistan.
eBook - PDFAmerican Global Challenges
The Obama Era
- M. Zaki(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
In fact, the majority of the public in the United States itself, and in many other parts of the world, was against the invasion. Therefore, it is very difficult to fathom the rationale, the real reason for the invasion of Iraq. It is interesting to note what some of the analysts have suggested as the main reason for the invasion of Iraq. According to them the reason could be any one of these: to get control of Iraq’s oil wealth; to enrich the military-industrial complex in the United States from the war (colossal monetary and material expenditure is involved in waging war and its recoupment, which benefits the war industry), and the subsequent reconstruction of war-ravaged Iraq; to remove Saddam Hussein from power; to give a greater say to Israel in the Middle East; to curtail the power of Iran in the region; to install a friendly regime well-disposed toward the United States with the aim of not only redefining the political order there, but also to use Iraq as a base for expanding U.S. influence in the region, and to utilize it as a launching pad for operations against hostile regimes in the region. Or was the invasion of Iraq part of the “Bush Doctrine” of preemption which appeared to resemble the political strategy formulated by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992 at the end of the First Gulf War? That strategy had three main ingredients: first, the United States must remain the world’s only superpower, unchallenged by other nations; second, the United States may use preemptive force in self-defense to confront hostile regimes; and third, if necessary, the United States will act uni- laterally to confront and eliminate the threat. While this strategy did A mer ic a n Globa l Ch a l l enges 90 not find favor with the first President Bush in 1992, Vice President Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz found a ready listener in his son, who it appears was egged on by them to adopt it, and the right opportunity presented itself by way of the 9/11 terror- ist attacks.
eBook - PDFThe Limits of Trauma Discourse
Women Anfal Survivors in Kurdistan-Iraq
- Karin Mlodoch(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Klaus Schwarz Verlag(Publisher)
On 6 February 2003, US foreign minister Colin Powell presented - as we now know - largely constructed proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the regime's association with the al-Qaeda network. The UN Security Council refused to mandate a military operation against Iraq. On 20 March, the US-led »coalition of the willing«, which included Great Brit-57 Violence and revenge also hit the inner power circle. In 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, Minister for Military Industries, and his brother, who was married to one of Saddam Hussein's daughters, defec-ted to Jordan with their wives. They returned to Iraq in 1996 after Saddam Hussein had assured them of impunity and reintegration. On their return, however, both brothers were forced to divorce their wives and killed by Ali Hassan al-Majid. 58 United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1441, 8 November 2002. Available at: http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/documents/resolutions/s-res-1441.pdf (last accessed 1 April 2013). Historical, political and social context 1 1 5 ain, Spain, Italy, Japan, South Korea and some thirty smaller countries, launched »Operation Iraqi Freedom«. Strategic targets in Baghdad were bombed parallel to invasion by ground troops from Kuwait. Germany and France strongly objected to the invasion of Iraq. The war triggered a wave of protest throughout the world. Bearing the slogan »No blood for oil«, demonstrators expressed their indignation at the bypassing of UN decisions by the US government and its allies. At the same time, a large segment of the Iraqi people welcomed the US-led invasion as the ultimate opportunity to overthrow the hated regime.
eBook - PDFThe Occupation of Iraq
Winning the War, Losing the Peace
- Ali A. Allawi(Author)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- Yale University Press(Publisher)
Bush rejected these findings, however, insisting that Saddam must go or be removed from power by military action. The USA had mobilised a large force – just how large a force became a subject of much debate later – and was poised to invade Iraq from the south, through Kuwait, and via Turkey. The Turkish parliament, though, voted against the government’s proposal to allow US troops through Turkish territory, and the much-expected Iraqi northern front did not materialise. In spite of the build-up of troops, America was still expecting a regime change through the action of agents inside Iraq, and through ‘decapitation’ of the regime by surgical strikes against the leadership. (Great hope was pinned on the ‘smart’ bombs that allowed for pinpoint bombing, which was supposed to take out the top leadership.) In late February 2003, the USA fired cruise missiles at a bunker in Baghdad, expecting to kill Saddam and other regime figures. This was to be the first of many attempts to decapitate the regime, none of which were successful. It was 88 THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ clear from the missile strike that the CIA plan for assassinating Saddam and other top leaders in the Iraqi government was still supported by most of official Washington. The Invasion and the Iraqi Opposition Forces The invasion of Iraq was launched on March 19, 2003 by American forces led by the Third Infantry Division, with British support, from Kuwait into Iraqi territory. The war was fought fitfully over a three-week period. There was no doubt about the final outcome, even if at certain points there appeared to be some resistance. But this was quickly overcome. In Basra, the British had effec-tively surrounded the city in the first week, but did not actually establish control until the end of March. Meanwhile, the Americans had met unex-pected resistance in the city of Nasiriya, mainly from the Fedayeen Saddam , a militia loyal to Saddam and his family.
eBook - ePubWalzer, Just War and Iraq
Ethics as Response
- Ronan O'Callaghan(Author)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
In 2003, US troops entered a country that was struggling for daily survival and almost entirely dependent on central government for jobs and daily sustenance. The US political mission, therefore, aimed at building the foundations necessary for Iraq to re-emerge as a modern, peaceful democracy in a region beset by violence. The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate how US political objectives radically altered Iraqi society. The chapter begins by outlining the relationship between Walzer’s thought and the type of society the US invasion hoped to create. It then proceeds to unpack how the socio-political environment spiralled out of US control, creating a new Iraq distinct from Ba’athist rule but radically different from US pre-war imaginings. Although this chapter discusses post-Invasion Iraq in terms of Shi’a, Sunni and Kurdish populations, it does not seek to represent these groupings as pre-given historical formations. Rather, it will demonstrate why the current articulations of Iraq’s various ethno-sectarian identities are in part a product of the invasion and occupation. Iraq’s current ethno-sectarian make-up, in this respect, is partly the result of the invasion and the ethico-political decisions made by the Bush Administration and the US Military.The pre-war imagining of justice in Iraq
The Iraq War is often characterised as an exemplar of neoconservative foreign policy in action (see Schmidt and Williams 2008 ).2 Indeed, Iraq had been firmly on the neoconservative foreign policy agenda throughout the 1990s (Hirst 2013 ). Advocates of intervention argued that Iraq had either procured or sought to procure weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that the Ba’ath regime posed a threat to security and stability in the Middle East. For example, a letter directed to then US President Bill Clinton by the Project for the New American Century (a prominent neoconservative group) argued for unilateral intervention on the grounds that ‘[t]he only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction’.3 Although neoconservatives were influential within the Bush Administration, the 2003 invasion of Iraq is inseparable from the September 11 attacks in 2001. These attacks confirmed to neoconservatives that Middle Eastern instability posed a direct threat to US security, and that decisive military action was needed to exert control over potentially dangerous nations in the region. While Afghanistan, as the designated origin of the attacks, became the immediate target, the desire to link the Iraq question to the terrorism problem began to intensify within policy circles. In February 2002, for instance, US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld claimed that the US knew that Iraq possessed chemical and biological WMDs, and insinuated that terrorist groups may seek to obtain such weapons from Iraq (US Department of Defense, 2002
eBook - PDFU.S. Strategy Against Global Terrorism
How It Evolved, Why It Failed, and Where It is Headed
- A. Tan(Author)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- Palgrave Macmillan(Publisher)
Other problems should have been obvious. For instance, it should have been anticipated that the invasion and occupation of Iraq could very well turn out to be a complicated and long drawn-out affair, involving a long period of occupation and a massive problem of recon- structing a fractured country, as Scowcroft had warned. However, it seemed that instead of planning for such probable contingencies, the decision to go to war appeared based on the assumption of the best, most optimistic outcome. Moreover, it should also have been antici- pated that such a war would be hugely alienating to the Muslim world as it would be seen to be unjust given the lack of any open provocation by Saddam. More seriously, it would contribute to a dramatic increase in terrorism by providing Al Qaeda and other radical groups with new recruits to their cause. It would also empower radical Islamists in a number of Muslim countries. Voicing the collective dismay of pro- U.S. regimes throughout the Middle East, Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, thus warned that “not one Arab leader will be able to control the angry outburst of the masses,” and that there would be a hundred Osama bin Ladens if the United States proceeded to attack Iraq. 18 The U.S. Invasion of Iraq 51 Given the paucity of hard evidence against Iraq, the international community, including allies of the United States, was not impressed with U.S. entreaties for the United Nations to authorize the use of force. On September 12, 2002, President Bush brought his case against Iraq to the UN General Assembly and challenged the United Nations to take action against Baghdad. Bush also stated that while the United States would work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions, it would act alone if the United Nations failed to cooperate. 19 This threat was reaffirmed a month later when the U.S. Congress gave President Bush the authority to use force against Iraq without getting prior approval from the United Nations.
eBook - PDFThe Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait
Religion, Identity and Otherness in the Analysis of War and Conflict
- Hamdi A. Hassan(Author)
- 1999(Publication Date)
- Pluto Press(Publisher)
The Middle East was in turmoil, immersed in a status quo of economic misery and frustration with the political stalemate – the ‘seamless web of significance’ 2 was so thick that something dramatic had to happen. The situation was further 1 aggravated by the growing prominence of Israel following the huge Soviet-Jewish immigration. The indignation of Arab intellectuals and activists at the United States, Zionism and the Gulf rulers, also manifested in grass-roots demonstrations on the streets of Arab cities, should be understood within the context of the unique discursive formation of Arabism. This discursive formation, involving a holistic self-image on the one hand and prejudice and bias about ‘others’ on the other, can be seen as setting the context for the decisive moments that led to the invasion of Kuwait, the crisis that followed and the devastating outcome for the Iraqi people and state. The political manoeuvrability of the Iraqi regime became very limited as a consequence of its decision to invade Kuwait. The Iraqi state’s infra-structure was extinguished. It was likened by a United Nations report to conditions in premodern societies. Even worse, since 1991 the Iraqi people have objected to the severe punishment received both from their own regime and as a result of the United States and other Western powers’ over-militarization in the Gulf region. The public discourse about Iraq in the West sees it as ‘thirsty for wars against lesser, dehumanized enemies’. 3 The media coverage is so obsessed with the homo Arabicus , Saddam Hussein, that one gets the impression that Saddam is the only inhabitant of Iraq. The terrorized women and children of Iraq all appear as ‘blank spaces’ 4 characterized by ontological emptiness (see the Appendix). The aim of this book is to discuss and understand the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait .
eBook - ePubThe United States, Iraq and the Kurds
Shock, Awe and Aftermath
- Mohammed Shareef(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Taylor & Francis(Publisher)
Wilkerson emphasised that a case could be made in International Law that it was a continuation of US foreign policy. 275 The Bush administration’s Iraq policy was a continuation of a policy that the Clinton administration had also articulated. It was to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring WMD and escape the international inspection verification regime that Saddam had signed up to, and a US willingness to use force to enforce this. Clinton had fired rockets in 1998 at Iraq and maintained the No-fly zones. In terms of the use of force this was a continuation of that policy. Kagan stressed that there was no departure in US Iraq policy and that there was a ‘tremendous amount of policy continuity’. After 9/11 the Bush administration decided that the threat posed by an Iraq potentially in possession of WMDs was greater than had been previously imagined. The policy before the invasion had continued to be regime change. This remained a constant desire of the Clinton administration, as it was for Bush senior’s administration. It was ‘only a change in the method by which that strategy was going to be implemented’. 276 Regime change in Iraq was consistent in US policy but was given greater urgency because of the impact of 9/11 on the US mindset. The attacks on 9/11 had ‘only amplified the sense of threat’. 277 The decision to invade Iraq, motivated by different reasons and purposes and attributed to different motivations and ideological factions within the administration, eventually led to the invasion of Iraq on 19 March 2003. Saddam’s regime fell in spectacularly speedy fashion in three weeks, testimony to US military supremacy and its unrivalled technological advancements. However, what technological advancements could not achieve nor address was the Phase IV post-hostilities period which is the backbone to success of any military venture involving the occupation of a foreign country
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
