The Position of USA in the Second Iraq War: The Axis of Peace - Coursework Example

The Position of USA in the Second Iraq War (2003 The Axis of Peace The Iraq war, also popularly known as the second Gulf war, began on March 20, 2003 with an invasion of Iraq by a multinational force led by the United States of America with an aim of bringing down the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein and disarming the Iraqi state of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Within 21 days, Baghdad fell, and by April 15, the invasion was declared effectively over after the fall of Tikrit, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s hometown. On May 1 2003, President George W. Bush in a speech aboard the USS Lincoln announced the end of major combat in Iraq, while standing behind a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished”. On December 13, 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured near his hometown of Tikrit and put on trial by the Iraqi Interim Government for crimes against humanity, of which he was found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging on November 5, 2006. He was executed on December 30, 2006, thereby bringing an effective end to the 24 year old rule of Hussein over the Iraqi people. US Position on Iraq On February 5, 2003, the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, made a presentation to the UN Security Council in which he asserted the American position on Iraq, declaring the failure of diplomacy and the possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) including chemical and biological weapons by the Saddam Hussein regime as justifications for a war on Iraq. The US position on Iraq was severely weakened when after the invasion, no WMDs were found on Iraqi soil, save a single cache of nerve agent “Sarin” found in November 2004 (Bryce, 2009). Additionally, the US claimed that Iraq under Saddam actively supported perpetrators of terrorism, chiefly Al-Qaeda, despite sparse and questionable evidence proving so. Ironically, in early 2004 after the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003, foreign fighters and Al-Qaeda terrorists joined the Iraqi insurgents in increasing attacks on American and Iraqi security forces. Within the United States, opinion among the political class about the Iraq war deferred. Former President Bill Clinton during his tenure supported an active program to weed out Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, citing his regime as a direct threat to the stability and safety of not only the people of Iraq, but also of the world . Within the political parties, opinions varied. The Democratic party’s opinion was split with a majority opposed to the war, and a minority supportive with an 81 for, 126 against vote in the House. The Democrats have been the most vocal critics of the Iraq war and have favored a gradual pullout of troops. Current President Barack Obama of the Democratic party famously opposed the war, stating in a 2002 rally that, “I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to dumb war” (Gonyea, 2008). The Republican party officially supported the war, citing in their 2004 Party Platform that winning the war on terror was their primary objective (Ingraham, 2007), even though some senior Republican leaders such as former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, and former National Security Advisor Bren Scowcroft had expressed reservations about the war. In the 2008 presidential elections, Republican nominee John McCain favored staying put in Iraq and has supported the Iraq war ever since its inception (Bai,2008). Of other major political parties, the Green Party has formally opposed the Iraq war (Green Party, 2003), while the Libertarians have also opposed the war and demanded a quick pullout from Iraq as soon as possible. Ever since the March 20, 2003, the United States has officially defined its role as that of a supervisor, overseeing the gradual transfer of power to the Iraqi people, and using military force only upon encountering resistance to oppose such aims, and for the protection of UN sites. In a June 3, 2004 televised interview, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage stated that the US forces would be in Iraq only under UN mandate and the invitation of the Iraqi government, following a speech by President Bush that stressed that the Iraqi people would have full sovereignty by June 30, 2004 (Us Department of State, 2004). To this effect, the Coalition Provisional Authority was created by the coalition forces in the aftermath of the invasion which eventually gave over power to an Interim Iraqi Government in late 2004. Elections were held on January 1, 2005 to elect an Iraqi Transitional Government to draft a constitution, which eventually gave over power to a permanent Iraqi government after general elections in December 2005. The actual realities on the ground have modulated the United States position on Iraq. After fierce fighting in the cities of Fallujah and Sadr in early 2004, Anthony S. Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International studies painted a grim picture of the war in April 2004 after the heavy fighting in the Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Sadr, claiming that the US now found itself in a “no win” situation in Iraq with a negotiated solution ruled out as being seen legitimizing the Sunni and Shi’ite opposition, and a military solution leading only to further disgruntlement against the US and fanning the fledgling militancy (Cordesman, 2004). This catch-22 situation has overtly complicated American stance on the Iraq, leading to furious debates in the country on the course of action to be followed in Iraq, which have concentrated primarily on the continued stay of troops in Iraq or a gradual pullout of military forces. From a perspective of isolationism and internationalism, the Iraq war has emanated mixed opinions. The advocates of isolation have often pointed out the aftermath of the Vietnam war when American military overreach resulted in a disastrous war. This libertarian philosophy of isolationism has been echoed again following the debacle of the Iraq war where, according to an Opinion Business Research survey, over 1.2 million people have died from March 20, 2003, to September 14, 2007 as casualties of war. Contrary to the philosophy of isolationism, the proponents of internationalism often sympathize with the Iraq war, citing the use of military options necessary to prevent humanitarian losses. Long ignored conflicts in Africa, particularly in Sudan, Bosnia, Rwanda have been quoted as examples of the fallacies of isolationism. The sufferings of the Iraqi people under the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein, thus, have been used as enough basis for the Iraq invasion. Former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, even stated that “post Iraq, tyrants should fear” The US position on Iraq has undoubtedly been formed on a philosophy of internationalism, which has long been the American policy. The first gulf war in Iraq was fought in 1990-91 on similar grounds when the government of George H.W. Bush had led a coalition of 34 nations against Iraq after its occupation of Kuwait in August 1990. A similar ideology of righteous intervention, coupled with the justifications of disarming Iraq of WMDs, and destroying terrorist havens, has been seen as the reason behind the current Iraq war. The public opinion on the Iraq war, however, has remained consistently low since late 2004 when incidents such as the Abu Gharib prison tortures and mounting American and Iraqi casualties have led the American people to reject the war and denounce American overreach and vigilantism. In Iraq, while the American forces were met with gratitude and enthusiasm with the fall of the Saddam regime in April 2003, the subsequent failure to restore infrastructure and security to pre-war levels has made the war highly unpopular, giving further credence to the supporters of the philosophy of isolationism. In a nod to the isolationists (and largely, the American people), the current administration, headed by President Barack Obama supports a gradual phase out of the troops in Iraq, encouraging political accommodation, and bringing stability to Iraq. Peace Movement History The horrors of the WWII led to a burgeoning of a worldwide peace movement. The peace movement post WWII was inspired by ideals of ending all wars (or a particular war), pacifism and solving international disputes through diplomacy and non-violence rather than war. In the United States, the post WWII period witnessed a growing arms race against the Soviet Union in the 40s and the 50s. The peace movement during this period was subdued, mostly due to the prevalence of McCarthyism when pacifists were accused of being communist sympathizers. The 60s, in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement and the American intervention in Vietnam saw a tremendous spurt in anti-war protests throughout the country, fuelled largely by a cultural revolution that sought to break racial and gender boundaries, and the propagation of rebellious music, film, and literature that eventually gained a mainstream following. In the 80s, the peace movement concentrated mostly on putting an end to the cold war when President Ronald Reagan adopted a hawkish and bold stance towards the Soviet Union and the prospects of nuclear war loomed large. After the collapse of the USSR in November 1991, the attention of the peace activists turned to seeking a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and also to bring much required, if belated, humanitarian aid to the war torn regions of Africa, particularly Bosnia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Post 2000, the Bush administration’s war against terror has been the prime focus of peace-activists, while also diverting global attention to the continued humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan. Worldwide, the peace movement aims at public demonstrations of strength in numbers. Frequently, protestors are joined by celebrities and politicians, whose media reach bolsters the cause of the protestors. Recently, in the US, politicians such as incumbent president Barrack Obama, Reverend Jesse Jackson, and popular celebrities such as actor Sean Penn, musician Eddie Vedder have spoken out against the Iraq war in moves that have galvanized support against the war. Peace Movement in Iraq Protests against the Iraq war have been fierce from the very beginning. Criticism was heaped on the Bush administration in its justifications for the Iraq war. The possession of the aforementioned weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Saddam Hussein government, which was often cited as the primary cause for the invasion, were never found on Iraqi soil, leading to widespread criticism in the international community. The French and the German governments openly opposed the war and refused to send its troops to Iraq. Several books and articles have been written by prominent academicians vehemently opposing the Iraq War. The latest of such publications is the book titled, The Way of the World by Ron Suskind. The book alleges that it the Bush Administration ordered the forgery of the Habbush letter to implicate Iraq as having ties to Al Qaeda and the organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks (2008). Legally, the Iraq war was held as breaching the code of the United Nations Charter. On September 16, 2004, Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan said on the Iraq war that, “from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal” (BBC, 2004) Protests against the Iraq war began in late 2002 when George W. Bush spoke to the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002, making a case for the war in Iraq. The single largest protest against the war was registered on February 15, 2003, when millions of people gathered in over 800 cities around the globe. An anti-war rally in Rome, Italy, was attended by over 3 million people, which is recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the single largest anti-war rally (Guinness World Records, 2004). Major protest marches were also carried out on March 20, 2003, the day of the Iraq invasion. A significant development in the protestors argument against the Iraq war was the release of accounts revealing the torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Gharib prison beginning in early 2004. The inhuman treatment meted out to prisoners was a serious dent to the credibility of the American forces and the US occupation of Iraq and helped incite popular sentiment around the world against the US government, including calls for resignation of the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Anti-war sentiment has been brewing consistently since late 2002, inflamed by the Abu Gharib prison incident and increasing civilian casualties. Protests have been carried out regularly in major cities around the world in some of the largest mass-scale rallies in human history. French political scientist, Dominique Reynié estimated that between January 3, 2003 to April 12, 2003, over 36 million people participated in nearly 3000 protests against the Iraq war . The massive scale of these anti-war protests has led many commentators to conclude public opinion as the world’s second superpower that could directly challenge the unilateralism of the United States (Tyler, 2003). A key feature of the activism against the Iraq war has been the use of the internet and new media to recruit and influence protestors. Blogs, online discussion boards and listservs were instrumental in propagating anti-war sentiment and organizing protest rallies. In the history of the peace movement since the second World War, the use of such a tool is unprecedented, especially since the profusion of easier forms of communication and networking such as blogs and social networking sites, and the widespread use of the internet throughout the world that enabled opinions to be exchanged accessibly (Shah et al 2006). The protests against the war were fuelled both by idealism and the grass roots activism of anti-war groups such as A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), etc. As already noted, the internet was a significant new tool for the organization of protests. Moreover, the internet was also a major source of spreading news and opinion against the war, with incidents such as Abu Gharib first being reported on the internet by foreign news websites. Thus, individual idealism, coupled with the activism, both face-to-face and online of anti-war groups and individuals that turned public opinion against the war were instrumental in the peace movement for Iraq. Alternatives to Military Action The United States and the United Nations, ever since the first Gulf War in 1990-91, pursued a policy of sanctions, both military and economic, disregarding the humanitarian costs to bring about democracy in Iraq. This policy largely failed with countries challenging the sanctions and eroding international support (Bennis, et al, 2001). Thus, one alternative to military action in Iraq would have been lifting of the economic sanctions on Iraq that have only fuelled resentment against the US and marginalized the ruling regime of Saddam Hussein, inciting further disregards of human rights. Such an alternative, however, could not have guaranteed either the restoration of Democracy to Iraq, or the abatement of human rights violations. The fears of the Bush administration of Saddam acquiring WMDs, most importantly, nuclear weapons were legitimate, if overstretched. The possibility of Saddam procuring nuclear weapons was low, but a nuclear armed Iraq would have been further emboldened in its efforts to gain regional dominance. The US assertion that America – and the world – could not risk such an eventuality was based on reasonable fears. Thus, for any US government to examine the possible alternatives to military action would be to find a way to dismantle the Iraqi WMD programs (which we now know were abandoned in late 1991 after the Gulf war). Thus, involvement of UN weapons inspectors would be paramount, which could be allowed into Iraq in exchange for a lifting of economic sanctions. Such an approach, however, might have ended up legitimizing the regime. Other non-military alternatives to the Iraq war would have required the co-operation of the international community. One such option would be an insistence upon dismantling all WMDs in the middle east region, including Israeli nuclear warheads, which would have deterred the American fears of Saddam acquiring nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. However, such a strategy, while not only highly unlikely given the tumultuous state of relations between the middle-eastern countries, would have also opened multiple channels of threat to Israel – a key US ally. Considering the options, the only appealing solution, apart from complete non-interference, would have been a quick war, fought quickly and decisively, with swift accomplishment of objective (dismantling of Hussein regime), installation of democratically elected Iraqi government, and stabilization of the region for effective governance. Such an approach would have kept both the economic and humanitarian costs of the conflict down. Having failed in this attempt, the only legitimate options available for the US government is either a continued presence in Iraq, or the pullout of troops, either gradual or swift. As Anthony H. Cordesman argues in Fallujah, Sadr, and the Eroding US Position in Iraq (Cordesman, 2004) either options provide a no-win situation for the Americans. The continued presence of the American forces will only help cement the continued rising tide of anti-American sentiment in Iraq and the Arab world, providing recruitment fodder for terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. A swift pullout of troops might lead to destabilization of the Iraqi government and overrunning of the country by insurgents – threats that would be far worse than the Saddam regime itself. Thus, in such a scenario, the only viable military option would be a gradual pullout with efforts to stabilize the democratic government and bolster the domestic Iraqi security forces, a move favored by the incumbent president Barack Obama. However, given that the largest decrease in violence in Iraq was seen following the troop surge of 2007, the possibility of the success of such an option is open to debate. Paraphrasing Anthony Cordesman, it actually appears that the US has found itself in an actual “no-win” situation in the Iraq conflict. Bibliography Bai, M. 2008. The McCain Doctrines. New York Times. 18 May. Bennis, P et al. 2001. U.S. Policy Toward Iraq: Policy Alternatives. International Relations Center British Broadcast Corporation. 2004. Iraq war illegal, says Annan. Available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm [Accessed 20 Feb 2009] Bryce, R. 2009. Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of "Energy Independence". Perseus Book Group, Cordesman, A. 2004. Fallujah, Sadr, and the Eroding US Position in Iraq. Center for Strategic and International Studies (202) 775-3270 Ingraham, L. 2007. Power to the People. Regnery Publishing, Washington. Gonyea, D. 2008. Obama Still Stumps on 2002 Anti-War Declaration. Available from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88988093 [Accessed 19 Feb 2009] Green Party. 2003. Global Green’s Action Proposal 2003. Available from http://www.gp.org/position/ggst_02_12_03.shtml [Accessed 19 Feb 2009] Guinness Book of World Records. 2004. Guinness, New York. Shah, D et al. 2006. The Internet and anti-war activism: A case study of information, expression, and action. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), article 12 Suskind, R. 2008. The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an age of Extremism. Harper, New York. Tyler, P. 2003. "A New Power in the Streets". New York Times. 17 February. US Department of State. 2004. Interview of Deputy Secretary of State, Richard L. Armitage on Abh Dhabi Television with Hany-El Konayyesi. Available from < http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040604_Armitage_Abudhabi.html> [ Accessed 18 Feb 2009] Read More