Criticism of the Iraq War

Last updated

A protester holding a sign quoting Pope John Paul II, which reads "Iraq war: unjust, illegal, immoral" (March 2008) A drizzly day for the vigil (2328666877).jpg
A protester holding a sign quoting Pope John Paul II, which reads "Iraq war: unjust, illegal, immoral" (March 2008)

The U.S. rationale for the Iraq War has faced heavy criticism from an array of popular and official sources both inside and outside the United States. [1] Putting this controversy aside, both proponents and opponents of the invasion have also criticized the prosecution of the war effort along a number of lines. Most significantly, critics have assailed the U.S. and its allies for not devoting enough troops to the mission, not adequately planning for post-invasion Iraq, and for permitting and perpetrating widespread human rights abuses. As the war has progressed, critics have also railed against the high human and financial costs.

Contents

Some academics see such costs as inevitable until US foreign policy turns away from expanding US hegemony. Professor Chip Pitts asserts that an American empire exists, but argues that it is profoundly at odds with better instincts of US citizens and policymakers, and that rejecting neo-colonialism by military means as employed in the Iraq War is a prerequisite to restoring domestic civil liberties and human rights that have been infringed upon by an imperial presidency – while crucial, as well, to promoting peace and stability in the Middle East and other places of vital US interest. [2] The Center for Public Integrity alleges that President Bush's administration made a total of 935 false statements in a two-year period about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States. [3]

Government expenditures

A British investigation (Panorama, 9 June 2008) estimates that around $23 billion (£11.75 billion) may have been lost, stolen or not properly accounted for in Iraq. [4]

The United States Department of Justice has imposed gagging orders that prevent further investigation. [5]

International law

The use of force by a state is prohibited by Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. The only exceptions are with Security Council authorization under Chapter VII, which was not obtained, or in self-defense against an armed attack by another state under Article 51. The US government stated that an armed attack by Iraq did occur against the US and its coalition partners as demonstrated by the assassination attempt on former US President George H. W. Bush in 1993 and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the US reserved the right to self-defense, even without a UN mandate, as were the cases in the bombing of Iraq in June 1993 in retaliation for Hussein's attempt on former President Bush's life and again in 1996 in retaliation for Hussein's targeting of American aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over Northern and Southern Iraq and the launching of a major offensive against the city of Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan in violation of UNSC Resolution 688 prohibiting repression of Iraq's ethnic minorities. [6] [7]

On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." [8]

Furthermore, before the invasion even the then UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, advised that the war would likely be illegal for several reasons including the lack of a Security Council resolution. [9] He later changed his mind when it appeared that the invasion would take place regardless of the legal situation.

Even prominent supporters of the war have accepted that it was illegal. Richard Perle, a hawkish member of the Pentagon has stated that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone." [10]

On the day Resolution 1441 was passed, the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, assured the Security Council that there were no "hidden triggers" with respect to the use of force, and that in the event of a "further breach" by Iraq, resolution 1441 would require that "the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." However, he then added: "If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security." [11] [12]

Troop levels

M1A1 Abrams pose for a photo under the "Hands of Victory" in Ceremony Square, Baghdad, Iraq. UStanks baghdad 2003.JPEG
M1A1 Abrams pose for a photo under the "Hands of Victory" in Ceremony Square, Baghdad, Iraq.

The troop level for the initial invasion of Iraq was controversial throughout the run-up to the war, particularly among U.S. military personnel. In 1999, then head of United States Central Command Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.) organised a series of war games known as Desert Crossing to assess an invasion aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein. His plan, which predicted much of the violence and instability that followed the actual invasion, called for a force of 400,000 troops. [13] Consistent with the Desert Crossing scenarios, the original U.S. army plan for the invasion of Iraq contemplated troop levels of up to 500,000, but Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared this plan "the product of old thinking and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the military", and decided on an invasion force of approximately 130,000, bolstered by some 45,000 British troops and a handful from other nations. [14] The plan to invade with a smaller force was publicly questioned by then Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, who, during a February 25, 2003 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, suggested that an invasion force would be "on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers." [15] In a November 15, 2006, hearing of the same committee, General John Abizaid, then head of U.S. Central Command, confirmed that "General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations." [16]

Post-invasion plans

In addition to raising questions about troop levels, critics of the Iraq War have argued that the U.S. planning for the post-invasion period was "woefully inadequate." [17] In particular, critics have argued that the U.S. was unprepared for the widespread looting and the violent insurgency that immediately followed the invasion. Soon after the invasion, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, a leading architect of the war, acknowledged that the U.S. made assumptions related to the insurgency that "turned out to underestimate the problem." [18] Pre-war beliefs about the occupation were inherently rosy, with Vice President Cheney noting on "Meet the Press" that U.S. forces would be "greeted as liberators". [19] Subsequent reports have indicated that oversights such as the failure to control access to the Qa'qaa munitions factory in Yusufiyah allowed large quantities of munitions to fall into the hands of al-Qaida. [20]

The U.S. plans for reconstructing Iraq have also come under heavy fire. In a February 2006 report, Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, wrote that: "There was insufficient systematic planning for human capital management in Iraq before and during the U.S.-directed stabilisation and reconstruction operations." [21] Critics have particularly chastised the Pentagon, which was charged with preparing for the post-invasion period, for largely ignoring a $5 million study entitled the Future of Iraq Project, which the U.S. State Department compiled in the year preceding the invasion. [22] In a 2013 report, the Watson Institute at Brown University concluded that, as the report was described by Daniel Trotta for Reuters, "the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud". [23]

Human and financial costs

As the Iraq War progressed from the relatively short invasion period to the considerably longer and more costly occupation, many critics argued that the war was no longer worth the growing number of casualties among both U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians. For example, the U.S. organisation Gold Star Families for Peace, launched by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and other parents of soldiers killed in Iraq and other wars, advocated "bringing an end to the occupation of Iraq" by raising "awareness in the United States about the true human costs of the invasion/occupation of Iraq." [24]

Just as the human costs mounted, the total financial costs also rose from the initial Bush administration estimates of $50 billion to more than $400 billion total, most of it coming from the United States, but at least £4 billion from the United Kingdom. [25] [26] [27] As the war bill grew, many U.S. politicians, including some who supported the invasion, begun to argue its cost outweighed its benefits, and that it was jeopardizing the preparedness of the U.S. military. For example, on March 29, 2007, Nebraska senators and longtime rivals Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) released a joint statement saying that "there is now a 'significant' risk that the United States military will not be able to respond to an emerging crisis." [28] [29]

Effect on global war on terror

During the run-up to the invasion a group of 33 international relations scholars took out a full-page ad in The New York Times suggesting, among other things, that invading Iraq would distract the United States from its fight against al-Qaeda and further destabilize the Middle East. [30]

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was advised prior to the invasion, "that the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests came from al-Qaeda and related groups, and that this threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq." [31] The International Institute for Strategic Studies agreed, saying in late 2003 that the war had swollen the ranks of al-Qaida and galvanised its will by increasing radical passions among Muslims. [32] Ten years later, a report from the Watson Institute "concluded the United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system". [33]

In January 2004, an Army War College report said the war diverted attention and resources from the threat posed by Al Qaeda. The report by Jeffrey Record, a visiting research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, called for downsizing the nebulously defined "war on terrorism" and focusing more narrowly on the threat from Al Qaeda. [34]

Impact on Israel

As early as October 2004, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Jewish support for the war had declined, due to fears of its negative impact on Israel, as well as the broader controversy. [35]

Effect on religious minorities

After the invasion there was a general lawless state in Iraq which is directly attributable to the invasion. This has allowed some Islamic extremists to take roots in the country and attack people of religious minorities which they consider to be infidels. [36] Among these religious minorities are the Chaldeans and the Mandaeans.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Opposition to the Iraq War</span>

Opposition to the Iraq War significantly occurred worldwide, both before and during the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq by a United States–led coalition, and throughout the subsequent occupation. Individuals and groups opposing the war include the governments of many nations which did not take part in the invasion, including both its land neighbors Canada and Mexico, its NATO allies in Europe such as France and Germany, as well as China and Indonesia in Asia, and significant sections of the populace in those that took part in the invasion. Opposition to the war was also widespread domestically.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2003 invasion of Iraq</span> Military invasion led by the United States

The United States-led invasion of the Republic of Iraq was the first stage of the Iraq War. The invasion began on 19 March 2003 and lasted just over one month, including 26 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq. Twenty-two days after the first day of the invasion, the capital city of Baghdad was captured by coalition forces on 9 April after the six-day-long Battle of Baghdad. This early stage of the war formally ended on 1 May when U.S. President George W. Bush declared the "end of major combat operations" in his Mission Accomplished speech, after which the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was established as the first of several successive transitional governments leading up to the first Iraqi parliamentary election in January 2005. U.S. military forces later remained in Iraq until the withdrawal in 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coalition Provisional Authority</span> 2003–2004 transitional government of Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion

The Coalition Provisional Authority was a transitional government of Iraq established following the invasion of the country on 19 March 2003 by U.S.-led Coalition forces. The invasion marked the fall of Ba'athist regime led by Saddam Hussein.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011)</span> Military occupation of Iraq by United States-led coalition forces during the Iraq War

The Occupation of Iraq (2003–2011) was characterized by a large United States military deployment on Iraqi territory, beginning with the US-led invasion of the country in March 2003 which overthrew the Ba'ath Party government of Saddam Hussein and ending with the departure of US troops from the country in 2011. Troops for the occupation came primarily from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, but 29 other nations also provided troops, and there were varying levels of assistance from Japan and other countries, as well as tens of thousands of private military company personnel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002</span> Joint resolution of the United States House of Representatives and Senate

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, informally known as the Iraq Resolution, is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No. 107-243, authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces against Saddam Hussein's Iraq government in what would be known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Investment in post-2003 Iraq refers to international efforts to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq since the Iraq War in 2003. Along with the economic reform of Iraq, international projects have been implemented to repair and upgrade Iraqi water and sewage treatment plants, electricity production, hospitals, schools, housing, and transportation systems. Much of the work has been funded by the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, and the Coalition Provisional Authority.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration</span> Overview of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration

The main event by far shaping the foreign policy of the United States during the presidency of George W. Bush (2001–2009) was the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent war on terror. There was massive domestic and international support for destroying the attackers. With UN approval, US and NATO forces quickly invaded the attackers' base in Afghanistan and drove them out and the Taliban government that harbored them. It was the start of a 20-year quagmire that finally ended in failure with the withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Military budget of the United States</span> Yearly spending of the United States military

The military budget of the United States is the largest portion of the discretionary federal budget allocated to the Department of Defense (DoD), or more broadly, the portion of the budget that goes to any military-related expenditures. The military budget pays the salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new items. The budget funds six branches of the US military: the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Space Force.

The Saddam–al-Qaeda conspiracy theory was based on false claims by the United States government alleging that a secretive relationship existed between Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the Sunni pan-Islamist militant organization al-Qaeda between 1992 and 2003. The George W. Bush administration promoted it as a main rationale for invading Iraq in 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rationale for the Iraq War</span> U.S. claims and arguments for invading Iraq

There are various rationales for the Iraq War, both the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent hostilities. The George W. Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001. The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the United States Congress known as the Iraq Resolution. The US claimed the intent was to "disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq</span>

A dispute exists over the legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The debate centers around the question whether the invasion was an unprovoked assault on an independent country that may have breached international law, or if the United Nations Security Council authorized the invasion. Those arguing for its legitimacy often point to Congressional Joint Resolution 114 and UN Security Council resolutions, such as Resolution 1441 and Resolution 678. Those arguing against its legitimacy also cite some of the same sources, stating they do not actually permit war but instead lay out conditions that must be met before war can be declared. Furthermore, the Security Council may only authorise the use of force against an "aggressor" in the interests of preserving peace, whereas the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not provoked by any aggressive military action.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iraq War</span> War in Iraq from 2003 to 2011

The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict in Iraq from 2003 to 2011. It began with the invasion of Iraq by the United States-led coalition that overthrew the Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein. The conflict continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the coalition forces and the post-invasion Iraqi government. US troops were officially withdrawn in 2011.

The following is a partial accounting of financial costs of the 2003 Iraq War by the United States and the United Kingdom, the two largest non-Iraqi participants of the multinational force in Iraq.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legality of the Iraq War</span> Review of the topic

The legality of the Iraq War is a contested topic that spans both domestic and international law. Political leaders in the US and the UK who supported the invasion of Iraq have claimed that the war was legal. However, legal experts and other world leaders have argued that the war lacked justification and violated the United Nations charter.

Strategic reset was a policy framework designed to stop counterproductive U.S. engagement in a fragmenting Iraq and to strengthen the United States' stance throughout the Middle East. In military terms, "reset" refers to "a series of actions to restore units to a desired level of combat capability commensurate with future mission requirements."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iraq War and the war on terror</span> Iraq-US relations

The Iraq War, along with the War in Afghanistan, was described by President of the United States George W. Bush as "the central front in the War on Terror", and argued that if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq, "terrorists will follow us here."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War on terror</span> Military campaign following 9/11 attacks

The war on terror, officially the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), is a global military campaign initiated by the United States following the September 11 attacks and is the most recent global conflict spanning multiple wars. The main targets of the campaign are militant Islamist movements like Al-Qaeda, Taliban and their allies. Other major targets included the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which was deposed in an invasion in 2003, and various militant factions that fought during the ensuing insurgency. After its territorial expansion in 2014, the Islamic State militia has also emerged as a key adversary of the United States.

Timeline of the Iraq War troop surge of 2007

Economic reform in Iraq describes decisions by the Coalition Provisional Authority to dramatically change the economy of Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The 20-year-long War in Afghanistan had a number of significant impacts on Afghan society.

References

  1. ↑ "Why Did We Go To War? | Truth, War And Consequences | FRONTLINE | PBS". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 2019-11-27.
  2. ↑ Pitts, Chip (November 8, 2006). "The Election on Empire". The National Interest. Archived from the original on July 26, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2007.
  3. ↑ "Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'" . Retrieved on Mar 22 2010
  4. ↑ "Daylight Robbery". BBC News. June 9, 2008. Archived from the original on September 23, 2008. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
  5. ↑ Corbin, Jane (June 10, 2008). "BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions". BBC News. Archived from the original on June 4, 2009. Retrieved April 30, 2010.
  6. ↑ Christine Gray (September 15, 2008). International Law and the Use of Force (Foundations of Public International Law). Oxford University Press. pp. 162–164.
  7. ↑ Jeffrey F. Addicott (October 31, 2004). Terrorism Law: The Rule Of Law And The War On Terror. Second Edition. Lawyers & Judges Pub Company, inc. pp. 43–44.
  8. ↑ "Iraq war illegal, says Annan". BBC News . 2004-09-16. Archived from the original on 2014-09-12. Retrieved 2007-02-17.
  9. ↑ Hinsliff, Gaby (2005-04-24). "Blair blow as secret war doubts revealed". The Guardian . London. Archived from the original on 2007-08-25. Retrieved 2007-10-25.
  10. ↑ Burkeman, Oliver (2003-11-20). "War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal". The Guardian . London. Archived from the original on 2006-05-08. Retrieved 2007-10-25.
  11. ↑ United Nations Security Council Verbatim Report4644. S/PV/4644 page 3. Mr. Negroponte United States 8 November 2002at 10:00. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
  12. ↑ Yoram Dinstein (December 12, 2011). War, Aggression and Self-Defence. Cambridge University Press. pp. 261–271.
  13. ↑ "Post-Saddam Iraq: The War Game". Archived from the original on 2007-08-09. Retrieved 2007-07-30.
  14. ↑ "Iraq - US Forces Order of Battle". Archived from the original on 2007-08-12. Retrieved 2007-07-30.
  15. ↑ Associated Press. "Army chief: Force to occupy Iraq massive". Archived 2012-09-13 at the Wayback Machine USA Today, February 25, 2003.
  16. ↑ Congressional Transcripts. "Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Current Situation in Iraq and Afghanistan" Archived 2007-10-22 at the Wayback Machine
  17. ↑ "Langevin Endorses Democratic Plan for Real Security". Archived from the original on 2007-08-02. Retrieved 2007-07-30.
  18. ↑ Slevin, Peter and Dana Priest. "Wolfowitz Concedes Iraq Errors" Archived 2017-08-22 at the Wayback Machine . The Washington Post, July 24, 2003; Page A01. Retrieved on April 18, 2007.
  19. ↑ Milbank, Dana. "Upbeat Tone Ended With War"\. The Washington Post, March 29, 2003; Retrieved on October 25, 2007. Archived June 25, 2018, at the Wayback Machine
  20. ↑ Streatfeild, Dominic (7 January 2011). "How the US let al-Qaida get its hands on an Iraqi weapons factory". The Guardian . London. Archived from the original on 7 January 2011. Retrieved 7 January 2011.
  21. ↑ Scarborough, Rowan. "U.S. lacked plan for rebuilding Iraq, report says" Archived 2006-10-16 at the Wayback Machine . The Washington Times, February 28, 2006. Retrieved April 18, 2007.
  22. ↑ Fallow, James. Blind into Baghdad Archived 2007-10-20 at the Wayback Machine (The Atlantic, January/February 2004)
  23. ↑ Trotta, Daniel (14 March 2013). "Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study". Huffington Post. Reuters. Archived from the original on 19 July 2017. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
  24. ↑ "Gold Star Families For Peace : GSFP MISSION". Archived from the original on 2007-08-07. Retrieved 2007-07-30.
  25. ↑ "National Priorities Project - Cost of War" Archived 2005-10-12 at the Wayback Machine .
  26. ↑ "UK. Spending on War in Iraq, Afghanistan Rises to $16 Bln (December 2006)". Bloomberg. 2006-12-06. Retrieved 2007-01-22.
  27. ↑ Bash, Dana. "What would war with Iraq cost? Archived 2007-08-09 at the Wayback Machine . CNN.com, January 2, 2003. Retrieved on April 18, 2007.
  28. ↑ "Hagel's Senate speech". Archived from the original on 2007-07-25. Retrieved 2007-07-30.
  29. ↑ "The Rising Costs of the Iraq War (March 2006)". IraqAnalysis.org. 2006-03-22. Archived from the original on 2006-06-21. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
  30. ↑ "War with Iraq is not in America's National Interest". Archived from the original on 2007-10-05. Retrieved 2008-12-13.
  31. ↑ "House of Commons Hansard - Written Answers of 15 October 2003". Archived from the original on 7 December 2017. Retrieved 30 August 2017.
  32. ↑ "Iraq war has swollen ranks of al-Qaeda" Archived 2016-03-05 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian, October 16, 2003
  33. ↑ Trotta, Daniel (14 March 2013). "Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson Institute Study". Huffington Post. Reuters. Archived from the original on 19 July 2017. Retrieved 6 December 2017.
  34. ↑ Record, J. (2004) "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism" Archived 2017-08-14 at the Wayback Machine Strategic Studies Institute
  35. ↑ Ron Kampeas, "News Analysis: U.S. Jews Turning Against War — Because of Its Impact On Israel" Archived 2007-09-30 at the Wayback Machine , Jewish Telegraphic Agency , October 18, 2004, accessed July 16, 2007.
  36. ↑ "An Ancient Religion Endangered by Iraq War". Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2007-08-02.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.