By March 2023, 20 years have passed since the US invasion of Iraq, a revolutionary incident that led to a full-scale civil war that is partly ongoing to this day. Thus, it is time to go through the reasons for the invasion and the subsequent wars, what happened, and Iraq’s current situation.
One of the main sources for this article is the war bible America’s War for the Greater Middle East by Andrew J. Bacewich, Professor Emeritus of History and International Relations, Boston University, and retired Colonel of the US Army.
Other sources include several peace research institutes, think tanks and journalistic and scientifical reports.
Through the epic terror attacks in New York on 9-11 2001, a new world order commenced, but the grounds for it was already laid with George W Bush’s victory in the presidential election in the fall of 2000.
The two events would together shape a new global era, events with enormous consequences especially for the countries of the Middle East, but which after-effects would shake also the entire Western world.
Background
The Iraq invasion had its theoretical base in the so-called Bush doctrine, a principle that was cemented long before the terror attacks on 9-11, and that in turn was based on the Carter Doctrine from 1980.
This referred to the Carter administration’s intention to use military means to protect US interests around the Persian Gulf and can be viewed as a response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The US hereby tried to hinder Soviet influence in the region.
The Carter Doctrine caused a paradigm shift in the foreign and defense policies of the US, a shift that would gradually turn focus towards the Middle East, and that would culminate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The fact that merely no US soldiers had died in the Middle East during 1945-1990, and that almost no US military personnel had died outside the Middle East from 1990 and onwards reveal this with all its brutal clarity.
Following the installation of the Bush administration in January 2001, its foreign policy was developed from the Carter Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine was mainly formed after 9-11 and contained three main pillars: unilateralism, spreading of democracy and preemptive strikes.
The Bush Doctrine thus meant that The US gave itself the right to militarily act against countries that harbor terrorists or support terror groups, arguments that would be used for the invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001.
The concept “Preemptive strikes” signifies that military attacks against other countries or groups in other countries could be justified in the claims of self-defense already before these had acted, a motive that was used against Iraq in 2003 when Saddam Hussein was accused of holding weapons of mass destruction. The 9-11 terror attacks gave new possibilities for intervention and together with the WMD accusations the “preemptive strike” argument was added.
Unilateralism of the Bush Doctrine furthermore included that the US justified to act militarily on its own to protect its interests, without asking the world community for permission and thus rounding international law.
An important part of the Bush Doctrine was The US’ support of democratic states around the world, and the intention to spread freedom and democracy through force, including military means. In a 2003 speech George Bush said:
“Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.”
In his second inauguration speech in January 2006, he said:
” The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom.”
According to the neo-conservative doctrine, the hate against the West had not been created by the acting of the US, but by dictatorships in the Middle East with chaos-stricken societies in which Islamic terrorism has its roots. The solution would thereby be to democratize these states and to include them in the Western community with its democratic values and economic development.
Thus, it was the responsibility of the US to protect itself and its allies by promoting democracy in the countries where terrorists reside, and thereby undermine their activities. In other words, the purpose of intervention was “to change the way they live”.
Military resolve was the sheer foundation of global, American leadership during the Bush era, and the global war on terror following 9-11 was a symptom of that. According to the Bush terminology, terrorism constituted “evil” and a war against terror thereby meant a war against evil. Here the Bush government was inspired by Christianity, and by history.
What they meant was that freedom, just like during World War II and the Cold War, was at stake. This meant that large-scale, offensive resolve would be needed to defend freedom. At least this was a crucial part of the opinion formation to justify the war against Iraq.
To remove all judicial and political obstacles for American military intervention, Minister of Defense Donald Rumsfeld put it in the following fashion:
“We have a choice either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live, and we chose the latter. We need to move swiftly, go massive, things related to 9/11 and not”.
MISSION IRAQI FREEDOM
The main goal of the invasion of Iraq was to significantly change the world, something that, according to the Bush administration, would need large-scale military adventures.
To legitimize the war, three levels of campaigns were initiated, where Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld played the main parts.
Rice campaigned to wear in the idea of the importance of a preventive war, i.e., to eliminate the threat before it was realized. The opinion formation was focused on the idea that an invasion of Iraq was about self-defense, an objective that was based on the adoption that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction and funded international terrorism.
Vice President Cheney’s role was to handle the domestic opinion, above all by dismantling criticism through political warfare in Washington.
Rumsfeld’s task finally, was to construct a technical plan of war that would ensure victory.
Extensive protests occurred around the world, but the opinion formation and the political game in the US proved successful: the Congress approved the invasion and the US media mainly showed support.
The military effort in Iraq was not large enough to necessitate a mobilization of the nation, to switch into so-called war economy. Americans shouldn’t have to make any sacrifices and the invasion, the epic change of the Middle East, would be executed through the existing military. This, however, would create a significant gap between ambition and recourses.
The US military would prove sufficient to quite easily overpower the Iraqi forces and overthrow Saddam Hussein, but it wasn’t strong or large enough to pacify the Iraqi society, to secure law and order. To put this in perspective it should be mentioned that four times as many troops were used in the Vietnam war than in Iraq.
When Saddam finally had succumbed in April 2003, the war was still not over – it had merely started. Quickly the Iraqi population would start viewing the “liberators” as occupants and already during April 2003 a first warning incident occurred: American troops killing 13 civilians that protested against the occupation force in Fallujah. The Americans had occupied a school and used it as base camp and the protesters wanted it to be returned to the children.
Several more similar incidents would occur in the initial period following the invasion, but it was the Fallujah incident that would ignite the spark that caused the guerilla war against the occupation forces.
Furthermore, the US generals had no knowledge of how to pacify a whole country, a country larger than California, with porous borders and a fragmented population of 25 million.
One problem was that Iraqi civil servants that would have been able to maintain the societal functions had gone missing. The reason for this was that the Coalition Provisional Authority, the civilian institution responsible for governing Iraq following Saddam’s fall, abolished the Baath party and forbid all its members to continue their government employment. Moreover, the entire security apparatus including the Iraqi army was dismantled. Iraq became an empty shell, and the entire governing responsibility was laid upon a colossally under-staffed occupation force.
Armed resistance
For a long time, the US generals as well as the Washington administration believed that the war was over once Saddam Hussein disappeared, and there was a lack of understanding of why it continued. The ever-increasing resistance was dismissed therefore as unorganized criminal elements.
As the US losses increased (1000 killed the first year) it was finally realized that the resistance in reality constituted of multifaceted, organized guerilla warfare and that the war was still ongoing. Moreover, it was understood that Iraq during US occupation had become a magnet for terrorism. This meant that the occupation had a contradictory effect. Instead of decreasing international terrorism the US war had strengthened it.
When Saddam’s Sunni-led regime was toppled by the US in April 2003, Sunni rebel forces quickly emerged, entities comprised of domestic and foreign jihadists including Al-Qaeda and Baathists comprised of Sunnites related to Saddam’s former military and security services. A seemingly countless number of Shiite as well as Sunnite militias popped up with the purpose of conducting armed resistance against the US and allied militaries. The bloodbath would consequently continue in undiminished fashion for years to come.
The Coalition Provisional Authority governed Iraq during 2003-2004 and included the occupation forces as well as Iraqi politicians. However, the disintegration of the Baath party and the Iraqi armed forces, as well as a refusal to allow Baath politicians into the new governing council, resulted in a destabilization of the country. These individuals saw no other way than armed resistance and terrorism for continued influence.
The militaries of the US and Great Britain thus met a full-scale guerilla war following the power seizing in the spring of 2003. City by city had to be conquered through massive operations, from Basra in the South to Kirkuk in the North via Nasiriyah, Najaf, Fallujah, Samarra and Tikrit.
These operations resulted in heavy American losses while the rebels lost many more. But it was the civilian population that accounted for the largest part of the death statistics in the struggle for control of the towns and cities around the country.
Ruthless warfare
The warfare of the occupation forces was strikingly ruthless and awakened an outrage in the United States as well as around the world. Respect for the rule of law, international law or human rights didn’t seem to exist. One tactical method of nightly raids was called “apprehend-Detain-Interrogate”, where doors were kicked in and all men in the household were arrested, without any specific suspicion of terrorism or participation in militia activities.
It was all about finding terrorists and rebel fighters, or potential ones, through mass arrests. Rumsfeld’s words “sweep it all up, related to 9/11 and not” were consequently executed by the troops on the ground.
Thousands Iraqi men were gathered in the prisons around the country, the most famous being the notorious Abu Ghraib a few miles West of Baghdad. In April 2004, serious abuse against prisoners like beatings, torture and different kinds of humiliation was revealed.
The scandal had considerable consequences. It would create even worse hostility towards the United States, and the Iraqi men that were subject to the brutality of the US forces possibly became more easily recruited by the militias than ever before.
For Muslims all over the Middle East the picture of Americans as uncivilized, decadent and perverse were cemented. The Bush administration’s motive for the war, to free the people of the region, came to shame, and it became impossible to call oneself “liberator”. The slogan that Baghdad was the door opener to the entire Middle East had reached its end. George W Bush’s project of recasting the region had all but collapsed.
Despite all, in June 2004 a Shiite-led interim government was installed, in line with the population majority of the country, but this increased the armed resistance from Sunni militias even further.
In Maj 2005 a transit government was installed after a national election, with the task of forming a new constitution. The constitutional committee was dominated by Shiites but also contained Sunnite parties. In Maj 2006 the transit government was replaced by the first permanent Iraqi government since the invasion, which took place following democratic elections in December 2004.
The armed Shiite resistance ceased during 2005 while the Sunni rebels continued their armed struggle. Deadly attacks kept occurring between Shiite and Sunni groups and in 2006 a full-scale civil war finally broke out.
Sectarian violence 2006-07
The flared sectarian conflict was a direct consequence of the US invasion and Saddam Hussein’s fall, where the resulting power vacuum provoked a devastatingly bloody civil war that mainly followed sectarian lines. Saddam’s Sunni-led government (1979-2003) undoubtedly oppressed the Shiite majority in a cruel and systematic way which certainly had created a strong animosity between the groups.
The incident that is believed to have sparked the war was an attack against an important Shiite holy place in Samarra, which was executed by a Sunni militia that probably had ties to Al-Qaeda. The incident triggered several Shiite retaliations against Sunnis, and death squads murdered hundreds of Sunnites around Iraq which in turn provoked Sunnite retaliation attacks.
The spiral of violence had commenced, and the US (and its allies) had lost control. Civil war was thus a fact, with 100 deaths per day only in Baghdad the following months. Most of the victims were civilians and a large-scale ethnic cleansing took place around the country.
According to calculations, 30 000 Iraqis were killed and 370 000 fled their homes solely in the war between Shia and Sunni Muslims. By the end of 2007 the violence had decreased since the ethnic cleansing in Shiite and Sunni areas reduced the possibilities for clashes, and a collective effort by the Iraqi army and the US forces (that substantially increased the number of troops in the country) was introduced.
US pullback & increased violence
In September 2010 the Iraq mission was re-named into Operation New Dawn to mark the significant downsizing of the American forces that was about to commence. In December 2011 the last US troops crossed the border into Kuwait, marking the end of the Iraq war. The last British troops had left the country already in May 2011, after eight years of warfare.
A new era with a new dynamic in the Iraqi conflict was shaped immediately after the last American troops had left the country and turned over the national security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces. On December 18 the Americans crossed the border; on December 22, 72 civilians were killed and 170 wounded in a series of bombings around Baghdad.
Many bombings were conducted around the country during 2012 and 2013 with over 10 000 killed and many more wounded. The spiral of violence was mainly sectarian between Shiite and Sunni, where the targets included everyone – civilians, government, Police and military, including Kurdish targets.
Civil war 2014-18
By mid-2013, sectarian violence was once again on the rise, and it was viewed that Iraq was once again on the path towards full-scale civil war. The tensions were provoked by the Shiite-dominated government’s harsh response to Sunni Muslims, like for instance the arrest of the Sunni Minister of Finance and his staff, and an armed helicopter attack against Sunni demonstrators in April 2013 that killed 56 people.
In May 2013 only, hundreds of people were killed in sectarian attacks. The Independent reported in May 2013 that 1500 Iraqis had died in sectarian violence that year alone.
Earlier, displaced Iraqis could escape to Syria but with the civil war going on there they no longer had anywhere to go. Actually, the two conflicts were intertwined; the Iraqi Sunni minority was inspired by the Sunni revolt in Syria, and many Sunni Muslim Iraqis traveled to join Sunni rebels there. Simultaneously many Iraqi Shiites were fighting for the Syrian regime.
During 2013 the Iraqi government had no one to negotiate with, there was no serious part that was ready to mediate, and the government was itself deeply involved in the conflict. The last the increasingly authoritarian regime wished for was a power takeover by extremist Sunni rebels in Syria, and it had therefore actively supported the Syrian (Shiite) Asad regime.
It was now that the bestial jihadist group ISIS popped up as a strong, armed force in Iraq, which meant that the war in Syria had a direct influence on the events in Iraq. ISIS grew strong in the chaos and power vacuum that had occurred in Syria, and in 2014 it crossed the border to also include Iraq in its struggle to create an Islamic state. The so-called spill-over effect was obvious.
The whole region fell into a new sectarian, full-scale war where Syria, Iran, Iraq and Russia stood on one side and where Iraqi/Syrian Sunni rebels stood on the other, backed up by Israel, the Gulf states and the big Western powers.
At its strongest point ISIS comprised of more than 30 000 troops and had conquered an area the same size as Great Britain, including parts of Syria as well as Iraq, and as much as 40 percent of land mass of the latter.
By mid-2014 the US-led coalition initiated a heavy bomb campaign against ISIS with around 60 participating countries. More than 13 000 bomb raids were conducted between 2014 and 2018. At the same time, American ground troops started to once again flow into Iraq, and in the spring of 2017 around 6000 troops had entered the country.
Iran sent 30 000 troops to Iraq, and Kurdish forces from the autonomous North assisted with thousands to combat ISIS. By December 2017 ISIS had been defeated in both countries, an achievement that had been reached through various simultaneous campaigns that included the US coalition, Iranian troops/militias, Russian forces/bombings, Iraqi militias, and the Iraqi army.
The 2014-2018 civil war in Iraq resulted in staggering 70 000 deaths and 3.2 million refugees. While ISIS has been defeated as an army on the battlefield, it still does pose a destabilizing factor in Iraq as well as the entire region, as a terror group.
IRAQ TODAY
As of today, Syria is in ruins and the Al Asad regime has, following an inconceivable number of killed, wounded, tortured, abused and fled, all but won the war and regained control of most of the country. This with crucial support from Russia and Iran.
In Iraq, following the defeat of ISIS, there was a slight optimism and a small hope that hadn’t been felt since the US invasion in 2003. Iraq’s military is better trained and shows a stronger loyalty than it did in 2014 when its forces fled and let ISIS occupy the country. There is a more positive stance towards US military presence and a strong sentiment that ISIS will not be allowed to rise again.
But dangers remain and the problems facing the country are still mammoth. Following the 2018 war, American politicians and analysts thought that Iraq had slim chances to manage the internal threats that loomed. There were fears that the new coalition government would be too unstable and fragmented to unite the different ethnic groups in the country.
Furthermore, Iraq is squeezed in between Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s growing rivalry and ambitions in the region, and this has resulted in an interference of the country’s internal affairs from both regional powers. They have meddled in elections and influenced politicians and political decisions.
In an interview with think tank Defense One in March 2018, an Iraqi Lieutenant General said that even though ISIS has been defeated as a military force, the ideology is still present in the minds of the Iraqis. According to him, the country needed a plan to eliminate this ideology. To have defeated ISIS militarily just wasn’t enough.
After three years of war against the ISIS, several armed actors had gained strength, actors that operated parallel to the Iraqi armed forces. The state thus didn’t own monopoly of violence which is an utter condition for a functioning state. After the war, the militias entered the fields of national economy as well as politics, and some of the parliament seats following the 2018 elections.
The massive popular protests that shook the country in 2018 and that have flared up now and then up to this day, is yet another threat to the state’s security. They are the result of dissatisfaction of corruption and the lack of employment and food.
After 20 years of war, the Iraqi society lies more or less in ruins, the population is exceptionally traumatized, and corruption is extreme. Iraq’s government bodies, before quite effective, have been eroded and ceased to function.
Another national trauma that torments Iraq is the enormous war crimes that have been committed through the years. Especially ISIS became notorious for its grotesque, bestial atrocities, but also the Iraqi forces and the Iran-supported Shiite militias are guilty of horrific crimes.
With Iraq’s democratic deficit and highly compromised authorities there are still huge deficiencies in the rule of law, with ongoing, systematic human rights abuses. Illegitimate arrests, torture and death penalties are conducted regularly on arbitrary grounds, and the rights of women and children are especially poor.
Lately, the Iraqi economy has shown signs of recovery, but the country is staring from an extremely low level. And only if there is will from all political and armed entities, the peace can be maintained.
CAUSES
Causes of the war in Iraq – official & real
The causes behind the Iraq war 2003-2011 and the reasons as to why Iraq is still in a state of armed conflict, are two different issues that should be discussed separately.
First, let’s discuss the events that led to the outbreak of the Iraq war, something that has already been partly discussed in previous chapters. Also, it is argued that the official explanations in certain areas differ from the actual ones.
Official causes
Outwardly, the Bush administration’s main motive to start a war against Iraq was the threat of weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam Hussein was accused of possessing. When no such weapons could be found, the main motive was changed to “good intentions”, to free the oppressed Iraqis to spread freedom to the rest of the Middle East.
Actual causes
The real reasons that were hidden by the Bush government and that were concluded by researchers, journalists, and other political experts, was to test the effectiveness with preventive wars, to topple unwelcome governments that didn’t coincide with US interests, and to embrace the Muslim world from a neoliberal perspective.
This meant Condoleezza Rice’s theory of “paradigm of progress” actualized, in other words the spreading of democracy, establishment of “limited governments”, introduction of market economy and the respect for human rights, including women’s rights. And this would take place with force if necessary.
According to these neoliberal theories, Iraq was a perfect target. Saddam Hussein was a pariah that no one would miss, the Iraqi military deemed as weak and incompetent, and the population was viewed as secular and thirsty for freedom.
The concept was to eliminate the root causes of anti-American terrorism in the Middle East by introducing freedom and democracy, just like the West had helped democratizing Eastern Europe following the end of the cold war.
In May 2003, as Saddam had been ousted, the Bush administration declared that the US forces had been welcomed as liberators and that Iraq would be able to finance its own rebuild. One concluded that other countries in the region would be subdued under the threat of invasion. Such countries were thought to be Syria, Libya and Iran.
The conclusion was that a swift victory in Iraq would open the doors for much else in the region and thereby work as a “domino plan”. The road to the entire Middle East would thus go through Baghdad.
Popular explanations for the causes of the war that cannot be verified, where some can border to conspiracy theories, but that individually can consist of traces of truth, include the oil argument, financial gains for the arms industry, elimination of threats to Israel and the chance for Bush to finish what his father H.W. Bush left unfinished, i.e., to oust Saddam Hussein for personal reasons.
Explanations for Iraq’s current situation
The explanations to Iraq’s current predicaments (i.e., poor, war-torn, conflict-filled, undemocratic, unequal, fragmented) are many more and multifaceted that the US invasion alone. Furthermore, to explain the causes of Iraq’s situation today, one needs to look beyond the borders of the country and include the entire region.
Today, the Middle East is characterized by failed states torn by armed conflicts, between states but mainly within states. To a high degree, these conflicts have ethnic and religious components, but other causes such as the lack of democratic systems and civil rights, social and economic divides between ethnic groups, are also present.
Above these, there are historical and colonial explanations regarding how the states were formed and which elites that grabbed power. The armed conflicts that have erupted because of these mentioned grievances finally created environments of despair and feelings of injustice in which extremist/Islamist currents gained a foothold and were allowed to grow.
In the wake of revolution and civil war, power vacuums finally occurred where these radical currents at last were able to thrive.
In Syria and Iraq, militant Islamism have grown strong in the armed conflicts that have ravaged since 2011 and onwards. Except for the chaos and power vacuum that occurred in these conflicts, under-development is another indirect root cause for the militant Islamism, where the lack of socio-economic development and education have made possible a culture of patriarchy, traditionalism, conservatism and theocracy, environments in which these trends can thrive.
The concept of under-development is also connected to the political suppression and the social and economic divides that are described above, which inhibit the socio-economic development. Furthermore, the militant Islamism is based on highly traditionalist, conservative and anti-democratic values that go hand in hand with economic under-development in combination with a deficient democratic development.
In Iraq, the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein gave extensive political, social and economic privileges to the country’s Sunni minority. Following Saddam’s ousting in 2003 and later the installment of a Shiite-dominated government, created the similar kinds of grievances, but in the opposite direction.
The decision of the provisional, US-created government to absolve the Iraqi armed forces furthermore created tens of thousands of unemployed, frustrated soldiers which no doubt further added fuel to the fire. For instance, Abu Musab’s Sunni terror group conducted several suicide bombings against Shiite targets to ignite a civil war along sectarian lines.
Except for attacking its Shiite enemies, the goal was also to interrupt the US’ handling of Iraq and its plans for the development of the country, which proved successful. Furthermore, the US’ miscalculations and brutal warfare created animosity with Muslims all over the region and thereby attracted thousands of Muslim warriors from the entire Middle East.
SOLUTIONS
A final solution for the Middle East conflicts, including Iraq, requires several extensive, far-reaching and coordinated efforts regarding large-scale military as well as diplomatic measures, and huge economic and political reform packages with the support from the international community.
To hamper the armed conflicts in Syria and Iraq, an enormous international, military mission would have been needed, but this never occurred and therefore the killing, suffering and destruction have reached such epic proportions that they are difficult to comprehend.
Now as ISIS has been defeated and that the people of Iraq have elected a new parliament, other difficult tasks remain. And the government now needs to take several acute, preventive measures.
That task lies on the new coalition government that was installed in 2022 following the national elections in 2021. Populist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s “Sadrist Movement” once again won the most parliament seats, this time by a good margin.
Some analysts viewed this as good news, since there have been indications of a will to find political solutions through negotiations across sectarian lines. Al-Sadr managed to form an alliance with Kurdistan Democratic Party and Sunni “al-Siyada bloc”.
However, the hopes were quickly scattered since the process of forming a government has been blemished by political violence in the shape of assassinations and bombings culminating in an infamous attempt on the prime minister’s life in a spectacular drone attack in November 2021.
The Iran-backed, Shiite parties “Fatah Alliance” and “State of Law Coalition” (with 17 and 35 parliament seats respectively) have been behind most of the violent attacks in attempts to dissolve the election results, with help from Iran.
Today corruption is one of the most serios threats against the country. It effectively hampers all form of economic and social development. Iraq’s parliament therefore needs to take action to strengthen the justice system and to build control functions that can secure transparency and accountability from the authorities, and thereby hamper corruption.
Another problem is the armed militias that are still active in Iraq. The new government has the difficult task of trying to separate the armed actors from politics and economy, something that for instance Lebanon has failed doing (Hezbollah is still an armed force as well as a political party within the government). Furthermore, Iraq needs to strengthen the national security apparatus to diminish its dependence on armed groups.
If the militias cannot be demobilized or integrated into the country’s security apparatus, alternatively being offered civilian jobs, the country risks returning to armed conflict.
How this is managed by the government is crucial if Iraq is going to achieve lasting peace or not. If demobilization/integration will not occur, the militias will eventually possibly challenge the monopoly of violence of the state and cause instability that in a worst-case scenario will lead to another full-scale civil war.
The future development of Iraq is also dependent on how the government will manage the enormous war trauma that torments the country. The guilty must be located and prosecuted and a reconciliation process must be implemented. This has proved crucial in African conflicts but requires extensive political patience and support from the international community.
So far, the government has largely failed to find and prosecute ISIS members that have committed serious crimes.
Finally, what will largely determine Iraq’s future are the foreign powers like the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. These must show political will to ensure Iraqi stability and set aside their sectarian strives. But in today’s political environment this can perhaps be viewed as a utopia.
In order for Iraq to be rebuilt, develop and keep the peace, several extensive and far-reaching processes must thus occur simultaneously. If this is possible is highly uncertain, but the governing elites of Iraq as well as the regional powers and the world as a whole, have no other choice than to try.
Filip Ericsson
SOURCES:
Andrew J. Bacevich, America’s War for the Greater Middle East, 2017, Random House Inc.
Brookings Institution, https://www.brookings.edu/research/operation-iraqi-freedom-and-the-future-of-the-u-s-military/
Institute for the study of war, http://www.understandingwar.org/report/beyond-islamic-state-iraqs-sunni-insurgency
Global Security, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iraq-civil-war-2014.htm
Defense One, https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2018/03/war-iraq-isnt-done-commanders-explain-why-and-whats-next/146889/
International Crisis group, https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iraq/b61-how-cope-iraqs-summer-brushfire
International Crisis Group, https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iraq/188-iraqs-paramilitary-groups-challenge-rebuilding-functioning-state
Utrikespolitiska Institutet, https://www.utrikesmagasinet.se/analyser/2018/oktober/isis-a-longer-view
Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/iraq
Journalist’s resource, https://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/conflicts/crisis-iraq-perspectives-research
The Independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-iraq-isis-yemen-saudi-arabia-iran-trump-wars-coming-to-an-end-a8133356.html
BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14546763
Foreign Policy Magazine, Why Muqtada al-Sadr Failed to Reform Iraq, (foreignpolicy.com)
Al Jazeera, Muqtada al-Sadr: Iraq’s kingmaker in uncertain times | Politics News | Al Jazeera
untitled (belfercenter.org), “Testing the Surge: Why Did Violence Decline in Iraq in 2007?”
TIMELINE (CNN), 2003-2011:
February 5, 2003 – US Secretary of State Colin Powell makes the case to the United Nations that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat.
February 14, 2003 – UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix reports to the UN Security Council that his team has found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
March 17, 2003 – President George W. Bush issues an ultimatum to President Hussein and his family – leave Iraq within 48 hours or face military action.
March 19, 2003 – President Bush announces US and coalition forces have begun military action against Iraq.
March 20, 2003 – President Hussein speaks on Iraqi TV, calling the coalition’s attacks ”shameful crimes against Iraq and humanity.”
March 23, 2003 – Pfc. Jessica Lynch and other members of the 507th Maintenance Company are ambushed and captured outside Nasiriyah, Iraq.
April 1, 2003 – Lynch is rescued from a hospital by US forces.
April 9, 2003 – Coalition forces take Baghdad. A large statue of Hussein is toppled in Firdos Square. The White House declares ”the regime is gone.”
April 13, 2003 – Seven US prisoners of war are rescued by US troops.
May 1, 2003 – Speaking on the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush declares ”major combat operations” over, although some fighting continues.
May 22, 2003 – The UN Security Council approves a resolution acknowledging the US and Great Britain’s right to occupy Iraq.
July 22, 2003 – Hussein’s sons, Uday and Qusay, are killed by US forces.
December 13, 2003 – Hussein is captured in ”spider hole” in Tikrit. This is not confirmed until December 14 by the US Defense Department.
June 28, 2004 – The handover of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government takes place two days before the June 30 deadline previously announced by the US-led coalition.
June 30, 2004 – The coalition turns over legal control of Hussein and 11 other former top Iraqi officials to the interim Iraqi government. The United States retains physical custody of the men.
July 1, 2004 – Hussein makes his first appearance in court. He is charged with a variety of crimes, including the invasion of Kuwait and the gassing of the Kurds.
September 6, 2004 – The number of US troops killed in Iraq reaches 1,000.
November 2004 – US and Iraqi forces battle insurgents in Falluja. About 2,000 insurgents are killed. On November 14, Falluja is declared to be liberated.
October 25, 2005 – The number of US troops killed in Iraq reaches 2,000.
November 19, 2005 – At least 24 Iraqi civilians, including women and children, are killed in Haditha. Eight US Marines faced charges in the deaths, but only one was convicted of a crime, that of negligent dereliction of duty.
November 5, 2006 – The Iraqi High Tribunal reaches a verdict in the 1982 Dujail massacre case. Hussein is found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging, pending appeal.
December 30, 2006 – Hussein is hanged.
December 30, 2006 – The number of US troops killed in Iraq reaches 3,000.
January 10, 2007 – A troop surge begins, eventually increasing US troop levels to more than 150,000.
September 3, 2007 – Basra is turned over to local authorities after British troops withdraw from their last military base in Iraq to an airport outside the city.
March 22, 2008 – The number of US troops killed in Iraq reaches 4,000.
July 10, 2008 – Gen. David Petraeus is confirmed by the Senate as commander of US Central Command.
July 16, 2008 – The surge officially ends, and troop levels are reduced.
December 4, 2008 – The Iraqi Presidential Council approves a security agreement that paves the way for the United States to withdraw completely from Iraq by 2011.
January 1, 2009 – The US military hands over control of Baghdad’s Green Zone to Iraqi authorities.
February 27, 2009 – President Barack Obama announces a date for the end of US combat operations in Iraq: August 31, 2010.
June 30, 2009 – US troops pull back from Iraqi cities and towns and Iraqi troops take over the responsibility for security operations. However, US troops remain in the country to continue combat operations and patrols in rural areas.
August 19, 2010 – The last US combat brigade leaves Iraq. A total of 52,000 US troops remain in the country.
September 1, 2010 – Operation Iraqi Freedom is renamed Operation New Dawn to reflect the reduced role US troops will play in securing the country.
May 22, 2011 – The last British military forces in Iraq, 81 Royal Navy sailors patrolling in the Persian Gulf, withdraw from the country. A total of 179 British troops died during the country’s eight-year mission in Iraq.
October 17, 2011 – A senior US military official tells CNN that the United States and Iraq have been unable to come to an agreement regarding legal immunity for US troops who would remain in Iraq after the end of the year, effectively ending discussion of maintaining an American force presence after the end of 2011.
October 21, 2011 – President Obama announces that virtually all US troops will come home from Iraq by the end of the year. According to a US official, about 150 of the 39,000 troops currently in Iraq will remain to assist in arms sales. The rest will be out of Iraq by December 31.
December 15, 2011 – American troops lower the flag of command that flies over Baghdad, officially ending the US military mission in Iraq.
December 18, 2011 – The last US troops in Iraq cross the border into Kuwait.
Election 2021
Iran-allied Fatah Alliance, lost 31 seats and now only has 17 seats.
Iran-allied former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law Coalition, has only 35 seats.
Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) – Tripartite Alliance (Sadr ally)
al-Siyada bloc – Tripartite Alliance (Sadr ally, united Sunnis)
World Politics Uncovered 