Jump to content

Iraq disarmament crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mav (talk | contribs) at 10:52, 26 January 2003 (Reverting POV aside that states as fact that the US supports terrorist acts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

During most of 2002 and into 2003, the United States government has threatened to use military force to overthrow the government of Iraq. It has stated the following reasons for its threats:

  1. The government of Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, are anti-democratic and violate human rights.
  2. The government of Iraq has secret programs to produce, or caches of, weapons of mass destruction (a relatively young term referring to biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons).
  3. The government of Iraq has supported terrorist operations and groups, and may supply them with weapons of mass destruction.

The United States led the tumultuous effort within the United Nations to pass Security Council Resolution 1441, which called for sweeping new powers for weapons inspectors within Iraq and threatens "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply with the resolution. This measure has been successful, and Iraq allowed inspections to continue (after a four-year hiatus) soon after the measure passed.

International law

The position under international law is controversial. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter explitly forbids UN members from employing "the threat or use of force" against other states, except with UN Security Council authorization, or in self defence. The United States has said repeatedly that it is willing to invade Iraq without Security Council authorization, possibly claiming self defence. Currently, late January 2003, it appears to fully support this stance, as allied response has hardened against military action in Iraq.

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.

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 Condoleezza Rice, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay have also been vocal in urging an invasion.

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. [1] 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.

Throughout late 2002 and early 2003, an increasing number of US and British troops have been flowing into bases in the area in preparation for action. Current estimates are 25,000 British and over 100,000 US troops.

Public Opinion

The UN Security Council

Great Britain has been USA's primary ally in the plans to attack Iraq. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister publicly and vigurously supports American policy on Iraq, but is perceived by some to exert a moderating influence on the American President George W. Bush. British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war had fallen to about 30%.

On January 20, 2003, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution", although France believes that Iraq may have an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, said that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs.

On January 22, German councillor Gerhard Schroeder at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac said that he and Mr. Chirac would do all they could to avert war. At the time, Germany is presiding over the Security council.

On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq."

On January 23, the Washington Post reported that Chinese position was "extremely close" to France's.


Local allies

Turkey is 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 to 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. In January 2003, the Turkish foreign minister, Yasar Yakis, said he was examining documents from the time of the Ottoman Empire to determine whether Turkey had a claim to the oil fields around the northern Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.

The population of Jordan, another important US ally in the area, is completely opposed to any action. Prior to UN sanctions being placed on Iraq, all oil in Jordan was supplied at very low rates from Iraq. When shipments ended the economy suffered terribly, and today the Jordanian economy is completely dependant on US supplies and economic aid. The govornment is attempting to follow a policy of neutrality, but is under increasing pressure by the public to refuse to allow US basing there.

Saudi Arabia is in a similar situation, although they are not as dependent on the US economically. Their public remains dead set against US action, regardless of a UN mandate. The government has repeatedly attempted to find a diplomatic solution, going so far as to suggest that Saddam should go into voluntary exile.

Perhaps the only local ally supporting US action is Kuwait, whose hostility towards Iraq stems from the events surrounding the Gulf War. The public appears to consider Saddam to be as much of a threat today as in the past, and are particularly interested in attempts to repatriate many Kuwaiti citizens who disappeared during the Gulf War, and may be languishing in Iraqi jails to this day. However, even in Kuwait, there is increasing hostility towards the United States. [2]

Other allies

Britain has remained a stauch supporter of action against Iraq, but it remains to be seen whether or not they will continue to support the US in absence of a UN mandate. Public support is divided, but increasingly beligerant posturing by the US appears to have tipped it against US actions. This has since spilled into the public, with Tony Blair becoming the target of an increasing number of attacks portraying him as Bush's "lap dog".

They are nevertheless tentatively 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. The First Armoured Division's 7th Armoured Brigade and 4th Armoured Brigade will take part in any war.

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

While Canada participated in the Gulf War of 1991, it has indicated that support might not be offered again, in part due to reluctance to fight without UN approval. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien stated publically on January 23rd that Canada will not support the US without a UN mandate.

France, Germany and Russia are publically opposed to US plans at all levels. As the US has increased the tone of its message, these countries have become increasingly opposed, and since France and Russia both have vetos, it is unlikely that any UN mandate could be passed in the short term. US officials, notably Rumsfeld, responded by dismissing the countries involved as being "Old Europe", further angering all involved. Others have speculated that these countries are against a war because of widespread European "anti-American" sentiment, and the fact that they each have economic ties to Iraq.

Almost all countries have called on the US to wait for the weapons inspectors to complete their investigations, which would occur in the middle of 2003. This places the US in a particularily bad position, if the inspectors do turn up evidence that would require an invasion, it would have to take place during the summer when the temperatures are too high for effective operations. This may be the main reason why the US has recently stepped up calls for an invasion, and the rhetoric about their allies' lack of will.

The position of the United States is that, according to the recently passed Security Council Resolution 1441, it is not up to the U.N. inspectors to prove that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction - but up to Iraq to prove it does not have weapons of mass destruction. Both the US and the UN security council are aware of large quanitities of weapons and chemicals which have still been unaccounted for. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly states that failing to account for all of their weapons materials and programs - even those that have been destroyed - qualifies as a "material breach" which would lead to "severe consequences".

The US has also repeatedly claimed that they will shortly provide ample evidence of Iraqi deception, stating that it more than justifies and invasion. However these claims have never been backed up, at least not in public, and appear to be increasingly ignored.

Given the current state of the public evidence agains Iraq, or more accrutely, the lack of it, it appears unlikely that a UN mandate will be forthcoming. This suggests that the US will have to lead a coalition of supporters into a war in Iraq, without U.N. support.

In the US

A recent (January) poll shows rapidly decreasing support for an invasion. Much of this appears to be due to the same reason that allied support appears to be dropping, namely that the US public believes the weapons inspectors should be given the time they need to complete their investigations. US officials have downplayed this apparent shift in public opinion, claiming that it is not a true reflection of the public mood.

A more recent poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News released January 24th shows even less support. 2/3rds of respondants wanted the govornment to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force. These numbers indicate a dramatic shift in opinion, only two months ago most polls showed about 2/3rds supporting military action.

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.

Much of the United States Air Force is being alerted to deploy overseas, including the 4th Fighter Wing from Seymour Johnson AFB, South Carolina; the 5th Bomb Wing, flying B-52H bombers, from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana; and additional units. Extra Air Force security squadrons are being sent from bases in Europe and the United States to the Gulf. Germany has agreed to provide base security for U.S. Air Force in Europe bases within its borders; in the Continental United States, Army National Guard battalions are being called to active duty.

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 S. Wallace at U.S. Army V Corps Headquarters in Germany to take part in computerized exercises, called VICTORY SCRIMMAGE, to rehearse potential 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.

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. Press reports state that Iraq has purchased several hundred GPS jammers to throw off the aim of these bombs.

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.

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, although the government of Saddam Hussein does not trust their loyalty.

The U.S. government has stated that if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons, it would be countered by American nuclear weapons, as per American military doctrine.

Effect on Civilians

The US government expects millions to flee Baghdad and central Iraq, for the south and possibly Iran. Aid agencies estimate that one million refugees may result from the war.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

The US says that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and that it must either give them all up or undergo a regime change. Otherwise, it risks U.S. military action to disarm Iraq. Iraq has variously claimed that it never had any WMD, or that it has gotten rid of them all (and is thus in compliance with US demands).

The US urged the United Nations Security Council to send weapons inspectors to verify or disprove Iraq's claim of having no WMD.

In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they have found no indication that Iraq has a currently active program to make nuclear weapons. Iraq had begun development of nuclear weapons in the 1980s. The main Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak was destroyed by the Israeli Air Force in 1981 to prevent what Israel viewed as the threat of an Iraqi atomic bomb, and the United States bombed Iraqi reactors during the Gulf War, perhaps for similar reasons.

The Bush administration has made much of the fact that Iraq had tried to buy a large number of high-strength aluminum tubes. Bush claimed in September, 2002 that they were "used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon", and national security advisor Conoleezza Rice described the tubes as "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs". However, after researching the issue, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported on January 8 the exact opposite conclusion of Rice's assertion; they assessed that the the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment. Instead, they were "consistent" with manufacturing conventional artillery rockets. While the tubes, which were 81 millimeters in diameter, would have required extensive modification to be used to enrich uranium, they in fact fit perfectly the 81mm conventional rocket program that had already been in place. In fact, Iraq had imported the same tubes for rockets in the 1980s. [3]

Although there is no evidence that Iraq made use of chemical weapons during the Gulf War, it has developed and used chemical weapons in the past. Blistering agents such as mustard gas were used on Iranian infantry in the 1980-1988 Persian Gulf War, and nerve agents were used on at least one Kurdish village.

The carefully worded U.N. resolution also puts the burdon on Iraq, not U.N. inspectors, to prove that they no longer have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's weapons report which was filed with the U.N. leaves large amounts of weapons and materials unaccounted for. According to reports from the previous U.N. inspection agency, UNSCOM, Iraq has 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin, and nearly 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells, with chemical agents, that are still unaccounted for. In fact, in 1995, Iraq told the United Nations that it had produced at least 30,000 liters of biological agents, including anthrax and other toxins it could put on missiles. This material has not yet been accounted for.

The Israeli government's Home Defense Command has begun preparations in the event Iraq launches chemical or biological warheads on SCUD missiles. 39 missiles were launched in the 1991 War at Israel. If chemical weapons are used, Israel may retaliate with its arsenal of approximately 200 fission and 20 fusion bombs.

Should the US use nuclear weapons (see above) the effect on the civilian population would be severe. The worst-case scenario predicted by Medact, an organisation of British health professionals, gives an estimate of 3.9 million civilian deaths in the event of the use of nuclear weapons by the United States. This "worst-case scenario" assumes, of course, that China, Russia, or other nuclear states do not retaliate against American targets.

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, U.N. weapons inspectors, 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.

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.[4]

On January 16, 2003 U.N. inspectors discovered 11 empty 122 mm chemical warheads — components not previously declared by Iraq. Iraq dismissed the warheads as old weapons that had been packed away and forgotten. After performing tests on the warheads, U.N. inspectors believe that they were new. While the warheads are evidence of an Iraqi weapons program, they may not amount to a "smoking gun", according to U.S. officials, unless some sort of chemical agent is also detected. U.N. inspectors believe there to still be large quantities of weapons materials that are still unaccounted for. U.N. inspectors also searched the homes of several Iraqi scientists.

In late January of 2003, the United States became increasingly isolated in the international community over the issue of war against Iraq. France, Germany, Russia, and China have all come out against early military action, and France has hinted it might veto a United Nations Security Council resolution that would authorize such action. [5]

Continued at Support and opposition for the U.S. plan to invade Iraq

See Also

Iraqi Regular Army, military of Iraq, Iraqi Republican Guard

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_disarmament_crisis&oldid=620947"