Iraq disarmament crisis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section may need a complete rewrite. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. |
The issue of Iraq's disarmament reached a crisis in 2002-2003, when U.S. President George W. Bush demanded a complete end to alleged Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq comply with UN Resolutions requiring UN inspectors unfettered access to areas those inspectors thought might have weapons production facilities. Iraq had been banned by the United Nations from developing or possessing such weapons since the 1991 Gulf War. It was also required to permit inspections to confirm Iraqi compliance. Bush repeatedly backed demands for unfettered inspection and disarmament with threats of invasion. The Bush administration began a military buildup in the region, and pushed for the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which brought weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei to Iraq. Saddam Hussein subsequently allowed UN inspectors to access some Iraqi sites, while the U.S. government continued to say that Iraq was being obstructionist, due to the fact that there were numerous sites made unavailable for inspection. The lack of full cooperation led Blix to personally admonish Saddam for "cat and mouse" games and warn Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his U.N.-appointed mission.
President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair met in the Portuguese Azores for an "emergency summit" over the weekend of March 15-16 2003, after which Bush declared that "diplomacy had failed" to compel Iraq to comply with UN Resolution inspection requirements, and stated his intention to use military force to force Iraq to disarm in what was, according to the Bush administration, compliance with the threat of "serious consequences" in UN 1441. On March 20, 2003 a coalition of primarily US and British forces invaded Iraq, see 2003 Invasion of Iraq. After the war, a number of alleged failed Iraqi peace initiatives were revealed, though their existence is not widely accepted inside the United states.
Contents |
[edit] Background
| The Iraq War |
 |
| Prior to the war |
|
Iraq disarmament crisis |
| Invasion and occupation |
|
2003 invasion of Iraq |
| Aftermath to present |
|
Coalition Provisional Authority |
| Opinion |
|
Views on the War |
| Related |
|
Years: '03 • '04 • '05 • '06 • '07 |
In the decade following the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations passed 16 Security Council resolutions calling for the elimination of Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction. The UN showed obvious frustration over the years that Iraq was not only failing to disarm, but was interfering with the work of weapons inspectors. Resolutions were passed and statements were released - at least once a year - calling for Iraq to disarm and fully cooperate with inspectors. On many occasions, Iraqi soldiers physically prevented weapons inspectors from doing their job and in at least one case, took documents away from the inspectors.
In 1998, U.S. President Bill Clinton expressed concerns about Iraq's failure to disarm, noting that he believed the country would give its weapons of mass destruction to other countries. Clinton also stated his belief that Saddam Hussein would eventually use these weapons - it was "only a matter of time." On September 29, 1998, the United States Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which states that the U.S. intends to remove Saddam Hussein from office and replace the government with a democratic institution. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed by President Clinton on October 31, 1998. On the same day, Iraq announced it would no longer cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.
Clinton's plans to remove Hussein from power were put on hold when the U.N., under Kofi Annan, brokered a deal wherein Iraq would allow weapons inspectors back into the country. Iraq quit cooperating with the inspectors only days later and the inspectors left the country in December. Inspectors would return the following year as part of The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).
Paul Wolfowitz, the hawkish conservative military analyst for the Defense Department under Ronald Reagan, had formulated a new foreign policy with regard to Iraq and other "potential aggressor states", dismissing "containment" in favor of "preemption," with the goal of striking first to eliminate threats.
This policy was short-lived, however, and Clinton, along with George H. W. Bush, Colin Powell, and other former Bush administration officials, dismissed calls for preemption in favor of continued containment. This was the policy of George W. Bush as well for his first several months in office. The September 11, 2001 attacks brought to life Wolfowitz's and other hawks' advocacy for preemptive action; Iraq was widely agreed to be a likely subject of this new policy, even though no evidence yet produced connects Iraq with these attacks. Powell continued to support the philosophy behind containment and it was his advice which President Bush balanced with Wolfowitz's calls to action resulting in a moderated approach. This approach began with the US appeals to the UN which led to UN Security Council Resolution 1441.
During most of 2002 and into 2003, the United States government continued to call for "regime change" in Iraq and threatened to use military force to overthrow the Iraqi government unless Iraq rid itself of all weapons of mass destruction and convinced the UN that it had done so.
US diplomatic pressure to bring Iraq to compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 quickly created a diplomatic crisis in the UN, where some were in agreement with the US position, while others dissented, notably the permanent security council members France, Russia and the People's Republic of China and fellow NATO members Germany and Belgium.
- United Nations actions regarding Iraq
- Support and opposition for the U.S. plan to invade Iraq
- 2003 invasion of Iraq - the actual invasion
The US had given the following reasons for its seeking to force Iraq's compliance:
- That the government of Iraq has failed to produce evidence of the destruction of caches of weapons of mass destruction, i.e. biological, chemical, as well as the existence of secret programs to produce nuclear weapons.
- That the government of Iraq has supported terrorist operations and groups, and is likely to supply them with weapons of mass destruction at some future point.
- That the government of Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, are anti-democratic and violate human rights - and have even been implicated in attempts at genocide.
Several close allies of the U.S. (e.g. Germany, Belgium and France), although mainly sharing that estimation of the United States, opposed a military intervention because they claimed that it would increase rather than decrease the risk of terrorist attacks. Although the UK and governments of other members of the EU and NATO also supported the US position, opinion polls show that in general their populations were against an attack, especially an attack without clear UN Security Council support. Millions of people in the major cities of Europe, and hundreds of thousands in major cities of North America, participated in peace marches on February 15, 2003.
[edit] Statements by U.S. President G.W. Bush
On September 12, 2002 President George W. Bush stated to the United Nations General Assembly:
"We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take." [1]
On October 7, 2002 President George W. Bush stated:
"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith." [2]
On March 17, 2003 President George W. Bush stated in an address to the nation:
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people." [3]
Two days later on March 19, 2003, as the 2003 Invasion of Iraq began, President George W. Bush stated in an address to the nation:
"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." [4]
Leaders of the multinational coalition have also pointed to human rights issues to justify the war. Saddam's regime's abuse of Iraqi citizens' human rights and the spread of democracy was cited, as mentioned in US President George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address:
- "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages — leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation." [5]
[edit] Supporting statements by President Clinton
The following statements were made by President Clinton on December 16, 1998. The eve of the vote on his impeachment.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq."
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."
For full text President Clinton explains Iraq strike
[edit] Issues of Concern
[edit] Unfound WMD stockpiles
After the invasion of Iraq, the Iraq Survey Group, headed by David Kay was formed to find WMD in Iraq. No stockpiles of WMD have been found in Iraq, although limited quantities of degraded pre-1991 shells have been found.[6] Iraq had destroyed stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. Artillery shells containing sarin were discovered, and one was used as an improvised explosive device (IED), probably without the attacker's knowledge. Weapons marked for destruction by U.N. inspectors have also been discovered. Also, mobile laboratories, alleged at the time to be used to create chemical or biological weapons, were discovered shortly after the invasion, but subsequent testing of the mobile labs proved they had nothing to do with weapons production.
Some equipment used to refine uranium was discovered buried at a nuclear scientist's house in Baghdad. There was "no indication [Iraq had] resumed fissile material or nuclear weapon research and development activities since 1991" (though there was extensive amount of "documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation"[7] and a "number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted". [8]).
[edit] Theories on the Unfound WMD Stockpiles
President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have both admitted that the stockpiles of WMD have not been found, and that the intelligence was flawed. These are some of the theories that people have put forward to explain the situation. These include:
- Saddam Hussein buried the weapons and the equipment throughout Iraq. Finding them is going to be practically impossible. Supporters of the explanation say this claim is supported by the fact that several fighter jets were found buried in the sand and that equipment was found buried at a nuclear scientist's house. These supporters claim that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Opponents of this theory however claim that the Administration's lack of evidence and its reluctance to come forward with this claim are simply hypotheses circulated by the Administration faithful.
- Saddam Hussein moved the equipment and materials into foreign countries that are neutral or friendly towards Iraq or openly aggressive towards the United States, such as Syria. Some proponents of this theory claim that the nuclear program surrendered by Libya was actually Saddam's program until Saddam moved it into Libya. Supporters of the explanation say this explanation is also supported by the fact that several key Iraqi officials fled to Syria and were later extradited. A recent book by a former top military advisor of Saddam Hussein alleges that Saddam did have chemical weapons, and that they were flown to Damascus in modified commercial aircraft before the war.[9]
- Saddam Hussein was lied to by his advisors and generals. They reported that he had weapons and programs in operation, but in fact, there were none due to lack of funding and the embargo. This is a possibility given Saddam's brutal nature and stories told by Iraqi scientists about falsifying results.
- President Bush and Prime Minister Blair lied about the continued existence of weapons at the time and used it to fool people into advocating a war with Iraq. They knew beforehand that Saddam no longer possessed such weapons, but persuaded their intelligence agencies to support the claim that he still had WMDs, and fabricated evidence that caused people to believe such. Prior to the invasion of Iraq the United States refused to supply UN weapons inspectors with intelligence showing the locations of said WMD (which the US claimed to be in possession of) arguing that it was necessary to keep that information secret, amid increasing skepticism toward the administration's assertions that they were only pursuing war as a last resort. Supporters of this theory point to the false claims made by Lyndon Johnson, in support of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as precedent. Opponents of this theory point out that before the war, Bush questioned CIA Director George Tenet on the WMD-in-Iraq issue, wanting to be sure Saddam actually had them; Bob Woodward reported in Plan of Attack that Tenet assured Bush that WMDs in Iraq were "a slam dunk." In fact, former CIA officials have stated that the White House knew before the invasion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but had decided to attack Iraq and continue to use the WMD story as a false pretext for launching the war (Sydney Morning Herald, April 22, 2006, www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/white-house-knew-there-were-no-wmd-cia/2006/04/22/1145344306427.html). The secret Downing Street Memo also shows that the Bush Administration had decided to attack Iraq and to "fix intelligence" to support the WMD pretext to justify it. A transcript of a secret conversation between President Bush and PM Blair leaked by a government whistleblower reveals that the US and UK were prepared to invade Iraq even if no WMD were found (NY Times, March 27, 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?pagewanted=2; see also the Downing Street Memorandum) Further, U.S. government documents declassified and made public show that the Bush administration was warned by the Defense Intelligence Agency in February 2002, that the tale about a trip to Prague by the leader of the 9/11 highjacker, Mohamed Atta, had come from an unreliable drunk, and that the story about Iraq training members of al Qaeda on the use of chemical and biological weapons was deliberately fabricated by an Iraqi defector. (Scoop, Nov. 18, 2005, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm last visited 2007/3/18.)
- The intelligence was faulty, and because the various countries shared information, they encouraged the myth of Saddam's WMD stores. Saddam played along with this myth and actively encouraged it, in the hopes that it would prevent an invasion. This theory is the theory that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair are supporting, and the one presented by the Iraq Survey Group. A report by The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction concluded that intelligence assessments on Iraq were "dead wrong." Furthermore, "the commission has found no evidence of 'politicization' of the Intelligence Community's assessments concerning Iraq's reported WMD programs." Another conclusion stated in the report stated that the Bush administration fostered an "environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom." The British government came to a similar conclusion in their report, Intelligence and Security Committee 2004-2005 Annual Report, published on April 4, 2005. [10]
The perceived U.S. position to the WMD investigation was later illustrated in an unverified but unchallenged document "Downing Street memo". In it, the British Head of the Secret Intelligence Service, Sir Richard Dearlove (known in official terminology as 'C') said:
- There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
On May 18, 2005, in response to the publication of the "Downing Street memo," Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article calling for Bush's impeachment for lying to Congress about the case for war [11].
[edit] Oil For Food Scandal
Members of France, Russia, and China's political establishment, along with some reporters, have been accused to have ties to the Oil for Food scandal by the Duelfer Report of the Iraq Survey Group. Saddam was said to have effectively bought their support against an invasion of Iraq, and bypassed key sanctions imposed by the U.N. in doing so. These government's positions were nevertheless representative of the opinions of their respective populations. According to polls conducted by Pew Global Attitudes before the 2003 invasion, more than 75% of the populace in both France and Russia opposed an invasion.[12]
The serious concerns of the war opponents arose in part from a fear of US hegemony (NATO nations with proportionately larger Muslim populations, e.g. France, Canada, disproportionately seem to have this view). However, most governments and US sympathizers state that their concern rises from the estimation that a military way of solving will foment more radical Islamism and terrorism, and question all borders in that region (especially in Kurdistan, a disputed region that demographically includes areas in Turkey, Iran and Syria as well as Iraq - see also the frequent wars between Arab nations in Middle East conflict). Perhaps most importantly it is thought to jeopardize all efforts of supporting nonviolent democratic Islam, led by moderates who are themselves generally against a war. For most war opponents, the American intention largely exceeded the fate of Iraqi disarmament. The relationship between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden appeared forged for hiding other goals. Beyond disarmament, it was in Saudi Arabia that Bush is interested. It is in Riyadh that are the financial and strategic keys of the Middle-East.
These allies and movements preferred a diplomatic solution to disarm Iraq and supported democratization in the region (similar to Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik in the 1970s which finally led to the peaceful revolutions in the Eastern Bloc in 1989).
[edit] Criticism of U.S. policy
Other opponents of the American invasion plan argued that the US's reasons were selective and ultimately insufficient, pointing out that states that the US regards as friendly to it share some of these attributes. Many states have weapons of mass destruction, the US more than any other, and the US itself has also allegedly supported terrorist operations and groups.
Although it received only mild press attention, a March 6, 2003 report by the UN nuclear inspectors cast serious doubt of the existent and extent of a then current Iraqi nuclear program. Invasion opponents find the fact that the incriminating documents were forged particularly concerning acquisition of uranium (see Yellowcake Forgery).
Many opponents of the plan also claimed that some or all of the above claims were vastly misrepresented by the Bush administration, especially in the connection between Iraq and terrorist groups. Fundamentalist Muslim groups, at the time generally did not support Iraq, as it was a secular nation that did not enforce what they perceive as Muslim law dictated by the Qur'an - in a tape reputedly released by Osama bin Laden in February 2003 Saddam Hussein is referred to as an 'ignorant infidel' and placed only second on the list of evils, after an invasion by the United States. Some argue that of course that collaboration between them would likely result in just such a tape and it is impossible to verify that such tapes do not come from the CIA, as is widely believed about all such evidence in the Arab world. In February of 1999, the Guardian newspaper detailed historical connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. [13]
Although George W. Bush originally stated that existing resolutions were sufficient to justify the US launching a war, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, had insisted that the UN must be involved, and it was widely believed that Colin Powell, US secretary of state, agreed strongly with this view, and that a new resolution was required.
The United States led the tumultuous effort within the United Nations to pass UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which called for sweeping new powers for weapons inspectors within Iraq and threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply with the resolution. This measure had been successful, according to the peace faction, as Iraq had allowed inspections to continue (after a four-year hiatus) soon after the measure passed, and had responded in a timely fashion to concerns raised about it.
The head of the UN weapons inspectors team, Hans Blix, expressed skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said. "There has to be solid evidence of everything, and if there is not evidence, or you can't find it, I simply say, 'Sorry, I don't find any evidence,' and I cannot guarantee or recommend any confidence."
In February 2003 the effort to draft an 18th resolution in the UN Security Council was underway. It was influenced at least in part by a near-revolt inside the UK Labour Party, which has the power to remove Tony Blair as PM of the UK, and which had made clear that without another resolution, Blair would be proceeding without the support of most of the UK's voting population, which was strongly against a war including only US and UK forces.
[edit] Authority under International Law
The position of whether the invasion was legal under international law is unclear. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter forbids UN members from employing "the threat or use of force" against other states in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Two exceptions exist to the rule: self-defense (Article 51) or an authorization by the Security Council to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).
The governments of the United States and Britain had said repeatedly that they were willing to invade Iraq with or without Security Council authorization.
There have been two military actions carried out by any nation with the approval of the Security Council. These two instances were the Korean War and the Gulf War.
The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of any international court over its citizens or military, holding that the United States Supreme Court is the final authority. One example of this policy is that the United States did not ratify the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, and on May 6, 2002 it informed the UN that it has no intention to join the treaty.
As of February 24, 2005 neither Iraq nor the United States have ratified the ICC treaty, and therefore neither the US attack on Iraq nor subsequent actions in Iraq fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC. The actions of signatories such as the United Kingdom and Spain could however fall under the ICC jurisdiction.
On March 17, 2003, Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General of the UK, set out his government's legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that Security Council resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm, and in early 2003 sent teams of weapons inspectors to verify the facts on the ground. Although resolution 1441 had given Iraq a final chance to comply "it is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply". Most member governments of the United Nations Security Council made clear that after resolution 1441 there still was no authorization for the use of force. [14]
The UK government made its case that Iraq had failed to disarm by releasing the September Dossier and the Dodgy Dossier.
[edit] Authority under US Constitution
The Constitution grants the power to declare war exclusively to Congress, but declares the President to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Because of this division of power, there has long been controversy regarding the authority of the President outside of a declared war. Nonetheless, of the hundreds of times the United States has exercised force outside its borders, only five have been as part of a declared war.
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 without Congressional authority. No president since has recognized the constitutionality of this act, and most legal scholars believe it would not survive a challenge in court.
To avoid initiating a crisis under the War Powers Resolution, the Bush Administration sought explicit approval from the Congress to exercise force in Iraq. On October 9, 2002, the Congress passed a joint resolution which explicitly authorized the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate. This raises the issue of whether or not Congress has the authority to delegate legislative power to the executive branch. However, in a recent United States Supreme Court case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions that the President had established, (and defended by arguing that he was given the power to create military courts by this resolution), were unconstitutional because they were unauthorized by Congress.
The Constitution also provides that international treaties ratified by the United States are among the highest law of the land (U.S. Constitution, Article VI). The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the U.S., which forbids member states, including the U.S., from attacking fellow member states, including Iraq, except in two carefully circumbscribed situtations (see UN Charter).
[edit] Iraqi opposition groups
Related article: Iraqi opposition group
In early August of 2002, US Vice President Dick Cheney met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition groups, pledging that the Bush Administration intended to replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic government. This pledge was viewed cynically by those who recall George H. W. Bush's call for Iraqis to overthrow Saddam in 1991, which led to the murder of a large number of Shiites in Southern Iraq when US air forces held back and let Saddam's helicopters fly in the southern No-Fly Zone to defeat the uprising. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense in that first Bush administration.
Dick Cheney, in his role as Vice President of the United States, took 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 had also been vocal in urging an invasion. Colin Powell originally appeared to favor diplomatic engagement, though would later support the administrations view regarding Iraq. (see below).
[edit] War on Terrorism
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. It has since come to light that Iraq had no connections to Al Qaeda, which is fighting the USA, and there were no Al Qaeda-Iraqi links to 9/11. Nor did it possess weapons of mass destruction, only the intent to build them.
- Continued at:
- United Nations actions regarding Iraq
- Support and opposition for the U.S. plan to invade Iraq
- Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 1990-1996, 1997-2000, 2001-2003
[edit] Aftermath
Careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find Weapons of Mass Destruction [15]. The United States officially ended the search for Iraqi WMDs on January 12, 2005. [16] For a time some contended that the Weapons of Mass Destruction had been secretly moved to Syria. [17] On December 14, 2005 President George W. Bush stated:
"When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."[18][19][20]
[edit] Further reading
- The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We'll Win., Michael Ledeen, St. Martin's Press, 2002, hardcover, 288 pages, ISBN 0-312-30644-X
- Threatening Storm: The United States and Saddam's Iraq, Kenneth Pollack, Random House, 2002, hardcover, 494 pages, ISBN 0-375-50928-3
- War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know, William Rivers Pitt, Context Books, 2002, paperback, 96 pages, ISBN 1-893956-38-5
[edit] See also
- Iraq war
- Pre-Iraq War opinion on Saddam Hussein
- International crisis
- Blair's tests for Iraq Disarmament
[edit] External links
- UK Attorney General's Iraq response - BBC News
- Blair - "We are ready to act on Iraq" - BBC News
- Bully Bush - Slate Magazine
- Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake - Washington Post
- Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Net Assessment - International Institute for Strategic Studies
- News & Analysis: Iraq - World Socialist Web Site
- Rice makes case against Iraq to Britain - Washington Times
- The Origins of the Bush Iraq War Plan Counterpunch, February 19, 2003
- The Thirty Year Itch - Mother Jones
- When Will Americans Come? - Wall Street Journal
- Who Armed Iraq? - San Francisco Chronicle
- Examines Reasons for War - American Liberty Foundation
- Law unto themselves - Guardian
