Operation Iraqi Freedom - Assignment Example

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION: OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM By Location Introduction During spans of wars and unrests between warring states or within a state, perpetration of human rights violations is not a surprise occurrence. This may be due to the desperation that forces the rival parties and as such they devise any potential means of suppressing and pushing the other into submission. As such, global bodies mandated to protect human rights usually mediate in such situations through military force in the event where human rights breach is overly evident. That is the definition of humanitarian intervention, according to Chesterman (2003, p. 7). To better understand humanitarian intervention, the following discussion text will focus on “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, an operation launched in 2002 aimed at ousting authoritarian Saddam Hussein, in developing the fundamentals of humanitarian intervention. In addition, it will evaluate the humanitarian intervention provided and explain why its mediation is important. The driving factor for development of Operation Iraqi Freedom was that Saddam Hussein’s rule was posing as a threat to Iraqi citizens, the larger Middle East region such as invading Iran, and the world at large. Saddam would kill anyone who crossed his ruling path, he was always against Shiite Arabs and Kurds of which thousands perished under his authority, he orchestrated several known instances of terrorist acts connected to Al Qaeda such as 9/11, and worst of all; America feared that Saddam was integrating chemical weaponry into his military, and this threatened the entire globe’s existence (Dale 2008, p. 6). Citing this as sufficient evidence, America and some allies, armoured to the teeth moved into Iraq on the March 20, 2003. Carter (2005, p. 4) estimates the military power exported to Iraqi as an approximate 137, 157 troops and these were divided into active duty, national guard, reserve forces, and non-U. S. (Additional) support forces drawn from 25 countries. These units further comprised of Marine Corps, Air Force, Navy and Army personnel and with them were sophisticated air, navy, and ground artillery. The first move was to weaken and take out the Iraqi defence forces by destroying major command stations and army bases. The move was successful in about three weeks from the first day of the invasion. After weakening the army, the United States moved in to topple Saddam’s administration, which it did with much ease, causing Saddam to flee. This was the first move in restoring calm to the Iraqi people after ousting of a brutal dictator. It was an even more relief for the Shiites (Kurds) who the Saddam administration had denied the right of grasping power (Wheeler 2002, p. 139). Again, with Saddam’s supporting forces and himself out of the way, the United States-led invasion, decided to help for a “people’s government”. According to Katzman (2011, p. 4), the ousting of the dictator opened channels for the formation of a plural system of governance, which saw an interim Iraqi government headed by Iyad al-Allawi, the Prime Minister. The resulting government housed both Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Following closely after this, the first post-Saddam ousting elections were held in 2005, and soon after, Iraqi adopted a new constitution. The troops remained in Iraq until 2011 when the last convoy was withdrawn, and after Iraq exhibited signs of permanent calm returning. As the curtains fell on Operation Iraqi freedom, Saddam Hussein had been captured and executed, 4,500 American soldiers were dead, and Iraqi casualties were ranging in the tens of thousands (Logan 2011, n.p.). The main goals that the American-led invasion seemed to have succeeded in restoring calm and humanity in Iraq, although some conflicts still pop up from time to time, but these are manageable by the internal forces. It can therefore be justified to conclude that with Saddam and the dictatorial rule ousted, plus hopes of survival restored to Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Iraq, the Middle East, and the world at large was free from fears of inhumane attacks. As is the case with any other world event, Operation Iraqi Freedom earned appraisals and accusations from the international community; was the intervention to salvage humanity or pursue its own political goals and self interests? Pattison (2010) states that an intervening state must not gain any material, political or financial gains from the intervening act. Lieberfield (2005, p. 3) reveals that internationally, the United States came under attack because some of the claims such as presence of nuclear weaponry and Saddam’s linkage to terrorism could not be proven after the invasion ended. In addition, it was questioned why the attack targeted Iraq when other states such as Libya, Iran and North Korea were more proven to have nuclear weapons. In addition, some world leaders had proposed for diplomatic, rather than military solutions in investigating and mediating in Saddam’s affairs. This highlighted the controversial debate as to just how lawful or justified the use of force is when it comes to humanitarian intervention which Holzgrefe & Keohane (2005, p. 232) states that even the UN has not been able to answer. The EU and UN both had mixed reactions purporting to the invasion. This was because while they are both humanitarian bodies, they had acted that guarded the arming and humanitarian standards, and which allowed for such interventions in case a state failed to disarm itself of lethal mass weapons, or if it failed to observe human rights. As Chesterman (2003, p. 110) explains, “Governments are no longer completely shielded by principles of sovereignty and domestic jurisdiction when they engage in… violations of human rights.” This was the case with the entire world as some segregation developed; some being for the invasion as others were against. Muslim states led the criticism while western and African states supported the invasions. Concisely, the reactions were mixed up; a normal occurrence during most humanitarian interventions (Ramsbotham & Woodhouse 1996, p. 56). Due to the damage left by the war, the international community realized that Iraq was weakening and would disappear if nothing was done to restore its economic status. Infrastructure had been wiped out, security was scarce, oil, mining was hampered, and the overall look was desperate. After calling for international cooperation, an approximate 33 billion US dollars were contributed globally for reconstruction of Iraq. In addition, Iraq’s economic sanctions were lifted, a new interim government was supported, the UN sent representatives, and the Oil-for-Food program was rolled out (Hildreth, Sharp, Caesar, Frost & Machart 2003, p. 8-9). Acknowledging that the humanitarian intervention in Iraq saved the situation, it is correct to justify that international participation was the solution. This is because toppling Saddam ended both internal and international threats to human existence, a move that Iraq or any individual state would not have succeeded in alone. As such, one learns that the international community is a key solution to humanitarian crises. Hehir (2013, p. 10) states, “… people looked to the international community more to solve the pressing issues of the day… with unprecedented powers to prosecute… crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression.” In addition, involving the international community enables an evaluation in defining what results in crises, what happens during the crises, and the aftermath that follows. For instance, it was feared that the U.S. invasion could lead to increased terrorist attacks (Welsh 2004, p. 68-69). Humanitarian intervention is also important in that during such crises, it can help filter out acceptable and non-acceptable applications of quelling methods. As seen in the case of the U.S., military power use was overly criticized as it was proven that better diplomatic ways could have been applied. As such, it supports Bellamy (2006, p. 24-26) notion on crisis resolution, which states that the “just war” mentality should not be the only means of solving problems. Furthermore, Bellamy suggests that the style and limit of war should be determined by the target, that is civil wars should not be treated the same as terrorist wars. Moreover, it justifies the resort to use military as a mode of intervention. Military intervention to protect human lives was arrived at as a final and the only remaining option (ICISS 2001, p. 57). Brown (2002, p. 168) states that, contrary to previous beliefs, international relations theory and political theories are now correlated. As is evident in the Iraq situation, the international community seemed to understand the sufferings of the normal people, and from it, it came in to try and restructure the political rights of grassroots communities, human rights, and observation of moral relevance and social justice. From the case study, the U. S-led invasion ousted the repressive Saddam government and helped form a people’s government and a new constitution. Again, the case study explains that the invasion was planned after Saddam refused to give up the lethal weapons program, kept oppressing the Shiite’s, and he had become a threat to the international community. What one gets from this is that humanitarian intervention dictates when mediation is necessary, a conclusion reached at after many considerations are made. We further understand that [forced] intervention is necessary in the event where a state fails to honour humanitarian obligations and its civilians are suffering (Lang year, p. 131). In addition, the study reveals that although the Kosovo case had failed in influencing political change, Iraq’s case had; thus significant achievement in humanitarian intervention’s effectiveness (Hehir 2008, p. 87-90). In summing up, it is evident to state that humanitarian intervention has saved numerous situations from getting out of hand, thus their demand is necessary in protecting both lives and liberties (Walzer 2006, p.54). From the case study in Iraq, the intervention by a U. S-led force saved Iraq and the world from Saddam, and what remains today is a better-than-before Iraq state. There is also evidence that an intervention cannot be welcomed by all, but it has to be done either way. Finally, some importance of humanitarian manifest themselves and include justification of military use, protection of human rights by force, support to new political systems, material support to weakened state, and overall world peace. All these, as sense would have it, would be unattainable without humanitarian intervention. Bibliography Bellamy, A 2006, Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq. Cambridge University Press. Brown, C 2002, Sovereignty, Rights and Justice: International Political Theory Today. Wiley. Carter, L 2005, “Iraq: Summary of U.S. Forces”, Congressional Research Service, 1-13. Chesterman, S 2003, Just War or Peace? Humanitarian Intervention and International Law. Oxford University Press. Dale, C 2008, “Operation Iraqi Freedom: Strategies, Approaches, Results, and Issues for Congress”, Congressional Research Service, 1-24. Hehir, A 2013, “Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary International Relations” International Journal of Human Rights, 1-25. Hehir A 2008, Humanitarian Intervention after Kosovo: Iraq, Darfur and the Record of Global Civil Society. Palgrave Macmillan. Hildreth, S, Sharp, J, Caesar, M, Frost, A & Machart, H 2003, “Iraq: International Attitudes to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Reconstruction,” Congressional Research Service, 1-19. Holzgrefe, J & Keohane, R 2003, Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge University Press. ICISS 2001, “The Responsibility to Protect” International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 1-108. Katzman, K 2011, “Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights.” Congressional Research Service, 1-43. Lang, A 2003, Just Intervention. Georgetown University Press. Lieberfield, D 2005, “Theories of Conflict and the Iraq War”, International Journal of Peace Studies, 1-21. Logan, J 2011, “Last U.S. Troops Leave Iraq, Ending War,” Reuters. Available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-withdrawal-idUSTRE7BH03320111218 [29 March, 2014]. Pattison, J 2010, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? Oxford University Press. Ramsbotham, O & Woodhouse, T 1996, Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary Conflict. Wiley. Walzer, M 2006. Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. New York, Basic Books. Welsh, J 2004, Humanitarian Intervention and International Regulations. Oxford University Press. Wheeler, N 2002, Saving Stranger: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford University Press. Read More