User talk:Abdulbasitswalah

'''Regime Change written by Abdul basit swalah. 2.1 Regime Change in Iraq “It's now clear that from the very moment President Bush took office, Iraq was his highest priority as unfinished business from the first Bush Administration. His agenda was clear: find a rationale to get rid of Saddam”. This quote made by the then renowned American politician Edward Kennedy suggested that Saddam Hussein was seen as a threat to the Bush Administration and a continuation of a U.S Republican Agenda to oust him was deemed necessary. The end of the Cold War changed the rules of the game for the United States. Washington became preoccupied with national security, its global position and regional interest. It was undoubtedly the most powerful country in the world with the largest army, many and powerful allies and few rivals relatively weak. Yet one of Washington’s fears was the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Nuclear Weapons in the hands of their rivals, rogue states, as well as terrorists. This concern led to the draft of a National Security Document in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush in which he argued the proliferation of WMD posed a threat to global peace and Security. The first Gulf War, which was led by President George H. W. Bush,  was, according to some commentators, an unfinished business,  because Saddam Hussein was still in charge of Iraq and was seen as a threat to international peace especially to the peace of the United States of America. The first Gulf war involved a lot of actors of which the United States was the leader, with an estimated troop strength of 575,000. The others included Saudi Arabia-52,000 troops (only 20-40,000 took part in the liberation of Kuwait and ‘Battle of Khafji’), United Kingdom- 43,000 troops (‘operation Granby’), Egypt- 35,000, Oman- 63,000, France- 14,633(‘operation Daguet’), Spain- 500 troops, Syria- 14,500 troops, Kuwait- 9,900 troops, Bangladesh- 2,000 troops, Pakistan- 55000 troops, Canada- 2000 (‘operation Friction’), Niger 500 troops, Czechoslovakia 200 troops, Netherlands 680 troops, and Honduras- 150.

As it was perceived as an unfinished business, the issue of regime change in Iraq was revisited by the newly elected President of America George W. Bush. Even before this, Bill Clinton’s administration had seen Iraq as a rogue state and a menace but he adopted containment rather than changing the Saddam regime. Before 9/11 Saddam Hussein was seen as a residual problem of the first Gulf War that did not require any sense of urgency even though regime change was an agenda, it was a long term agenda that needs to be fulfilled. This was evident when Colin Powell once likened Saddam Hussein to a “toothache”. The attack on the United States in September 2001, even though not carried out by Iraq provided very strong grounds for President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to attack Saddam Hussein in their war on terror as compared to the failed attempt in 1993, on the World Trade Center in New York. It was reported: “Ten days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda”. America and Britain saw Saddam as harboring terrorists even though they could not directly link him with the attack on the US World Trade Center but Saddam Hussein’s public support for the attack made it easier and even more credible for President Bush to wage a war against supporters of the carnage in America.

Regime change had been considered since the end of the first Gulf war but the only difference between the Bush-led administration and that of Clinton was that this time President Bush had vowed to accomplish a long-standing objective to oust Saddam and to replace the regime with a more stable, moderate, democratic and all inclusive government. This was evident when Sir John Sawers appeared before the Chilcott Iraq Inquiry, ongoing in London in 2010. Prime Minister Blair and President Bush were determined to achieve this in what the latter termed Operation Iraqi Freedom. It became even more evident later when Prime Minister Blair, in an interview with the BBC’s Fern Britton, confessed he would have still gone on with the Iraqi occupation even if there was no claim of WMD - "I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]". This suggests that Regime Change was inevitable.

There had been growing tension between the U.S and Iraq over the years as the United States and United Kingdom alleged that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The US and UK, through the United Nations, pushed for WMD inspection in Iraq but in November 1998, amid a crisis with Iraq over WMD inspections, the Clinton administration clearly stated that the US would be prepared to go beyond containment to that of regime change in Iraq. This was later endorsed through a policy of the Iraq Liberation Act (P.L 105-338, October 31, 1998). Even though this did not happen under the Clinton administration, the September 11 2001 attacks on the US intensified the call for Regime change by the Bush administration. A UN Resolution 1441 was passed for the inspection of WMD in Iraq through the pressure of US and UK governments. Regime Change was made one of the most important US policies which gave birth to Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003 even when it was evident that Saddam had nothing to do with the attack in the United States. The UK as well was warned through their nuclear, chemical and biological weapon expert, Dr. David Kelly on the claim of Iraq’s WMD.

US policy on Iraq changed from containment under President Clinton to that of Preemptive Self Defense under President Bush. This article has been structured in a chronological manner and concludes with an objective analysis of all the issues discussed. It goes on further to look at some challenges that the U.S. faced in trying to change Saddam Hussein’s regime with what they called a more democratic, all inclusive government.

There had been past attempts to topple Saddam’s regime, both internally and externally. It was reported on December 2, 2001 that President Bush had ordered support for opposition groups within Iraq as well as a detailed military plan to oust Saddam Hussein. Again another senior official in the President Bush administration, Richard Armitage, who was the Deputy Secretary of State, was reported to have said that action against Iraq was not imminent but would come at a ‘place and time of our choosing’. This was a clear indication that covert attempts were being considered to change the regime in Iraq. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 which saw the US drafted in to reverse the situation through Operation Desert Storm on January 16, 1991 created the grounds for the opposition Shiite Muslims in Southern Iraq and Kurdish factions in Northern Iraq to overthrow Saddam. Even prior to Operation Desert Storm, there had been a call by President George H.W Bush for the people of Iraq to revolt against Saddam’s administration and overthrow it. Interestingly, the Iraqi opposition saw the end of the Gulf war as the perfect time for the revolt as it was perceived that most of Saddam’s Revolutionary Guards had suffered defeat and were more or less weakened to withstand any further conflict. The opposition also hoped that the US would support their uprising militarily especially through air-fire support. They revolted from the south of Iraq to the suburbs of Baghdad, but little did they know that the Republican Guard Forces, mainly composed of Regime loyalist, had survived the war largely because they had been withdrawn from battle before the US ground offensives. This uprising was halted and the opposition was defeated by mid March 1991. Most of the Shiites blamed the US for being unsupportive in the quest to overthrow Saddam as the regime retaliated against the Shiite militants. It is important to state here that the Kurds benefited from the US-led “No Fly Zone” which was established in April 1991. This drove many of the Iraqi troops out of most of Northern Iraq and it subsequently remained free of Saddam Hussein’s rule.

Even though the first Gulf war was seen as an unfinished business by others, the focal point of this invasion was the attack on the U.S World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. As John Gaddis argued, United States found itself living ‘in a suddenly more dangerous world’. Iraq had been on the radar of America for some time as a rogue state with a dictatorial leader, Saddam Hussein. While a lot of effort had been put in to contain Saddam Hussein’s threat, 9/11 was just a perfect timing to oust Saddam for what the US and UK termed a more democratic and all inclusive government that would respect human rights and be a model in the Middle-East region. Even before the Iraqi occupation in 2003, both the US and Britain had given the impression to the world that their aim was to stop the amassing and developing of WMD considering Saddam Hussein had previously used chemical weapons on the Kurds in northern Iraq.

Al-Qaeda’s attack made Saddam Hussein look more dangerous because they provided a new outlet for Saddam Hussein’s aggression. They argued that even though Iraq was not linked to the attack on America, Saddam Hussein had links with Al-Qaeda, which he could use for further attacks on US interest worldwide and therefore, according to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, America had to be on the offensive.

Another reason was that of defeating terrorism. The United States and Britain were determined to defeat terrorists wherever they were, whether within their countries or beyond. Again, the attack on Iraq would send strong messages that the US/UK led coalition were determined to fight and defeat terrorists individually or as an organized group. Again, the US Vice President in his August 2002 Veterans of Foreign Wars speech argued that to delay the attack on terrorist was a dangerous action that would come to hunt the United States and its allies.

The aforementioned argument by the US and UK led to the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 for the inspection of WMD in Iraq. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) however, saw no evidence of WMD. Another important reason that was given for invading Iraq was that, allegedly, Iraq was supporting the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. It was reported that a family of a Palestinian suicide bomber received a sum of $25,000 whiles others are said to have received $10,000 each. Not only was Saddam Hussein supporting these suicide bombers in Palestine, it was alleged as well that Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists, providing them training camps, operating bases as well as the country been used as headquarters for terrorists. The then Vice President of America, Dick Cheney was among senior figures in the Bush Administration that openly confirmed Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorist.

Again the Iraq regime was seen as a violator of human right and there were reported human rights abuses. These included the disappearance of opposition members, killing of innocent citizens and infringement on the basic rights of women and children. There is almost no freedom of speech, movement and press; the judicial system is heavily monitored by the regime while opposition activities are curtailed to the minimum. All these were arguments put forward to justify the need to replace Saddam Hussein’s regime for a more democratic one.

Realist scholars, including John J Mearsheimer, opposed the invasion of Iraq, with the notable exception of Henry Kissinger. Mearsheimer noted that the Bush Administration was neo-conservative, believing that democracy was the only solution to fighting terrorism and that the only way to realize this foreign policy was the use of force as  a deterrent to would-be terrorists. From an International Politics perspective, power was a key feature of US foreign policy under President Bush administration. It is important to stress that the Bush doctrine was derived from a neo-conservative theory which had an idealist and power strands. The believe that the United States is the most powerful country militarily in the world and that it can use this power to reshape the world to suit its interest is by far a neo-conservative idea. This is why the Bush Doctrine favors military action over diplomacy. Example of this instance is the ultimatum given to Saddam Hussein by President Bush to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war. Clearly from an international politics perspective America favored Unilateralism to multilateralism because diplomacy would have meant America would have to rely on allies and seek approval from other international actors in order to carry out a military action against any other country. In effect, America relied on ‘bandwagoning’ logic where they assumed that by threatening to invade Iraq, other countries would be quick to support them because they would not want to be seen as allies of America’s enemies.

Here, one would have thought America would learn from the ‘Domino theory’ where it was assumed that if Vietnam were to fall to communism, other countries in the Southeast Asia would follow suit which would eventually lead to other countries in the international system joining the bandwagon of the Soviet leaving the United States with no ally. Interestingly, America assumed they could reverse the trend this time around to work in their favor by ousting Saddam Hussein which would have cascading effect in the Middle East and hopefully the world as a whole but it is still a dream waiting to materialize. An example of this assumption was clearly demonstrated by President Bush when he asserted “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”

It is no surprise when realists accuse the United States of advocating neo-conservative ideals. As already stated in the preceding paragraph of this chapter, the idealist notion of neo-conservatives’ focuses on the promotion of democracy. America is notably one of the fore-runners in this where they believe democratic countries are less likely to cause havoc in the international system. America under President Bush believed the world is divided in two: good and bad. Those with democracy are thought to be naturally inclined to act peacefully towards other countries and vice-versa. Again this is evident when President Bush in the aftermath of the September 11, branded some countries as the ‘axis of evil’, and those on the bandwagon of America as allies. One could therefore conclude that a world that America is trying to create is one that is full of democracy where there would be no war, which will result to what Francis Fukuyama termed “the end of history.”

On the contrary, the neo-conservative ideas of the Bush administration had come under a barrage of criticism from realists across the globe. Realist believe that the world is balanced where one group serve as a deterrent to the other. They argue that one state should not be too powerful like the United States and threaten the rest but instead there should be counter measures to resist threat from the powerful. This is in sharp contrast to the band-wagoning that the United States is trying to promote. Thus it was being argued that the acquisition of Nuclear deterrent was a necessary evil for both Iran and North Korea, which would immunize them from American power. It is therefore right to say the realists were right in their assumption that the world is balanced because until now both North Korea and Iran had not caved in to the American threat and even though the Saddam regime had fallen, the so-called axis of evil are still pursuing their nuclear enrichment.

Again it is worth mentioning that European countries with the exception of the UK did not dance to the tune of America during the early stages of the invasion, notably France and Germany. This was in contrast to the neo-conservative expectation of America. Realists have again proved that nationalism is a very important aspect of a state as compared to the spread of democracy. This had made the Iraqi occupation much more costly to America and its allies as self-determination is regarded as essential in areas like the Middle-East. The situation currently in Iraq is that of fighting self-determination as most indigenous people believe the Americans and its allies have overstayed their visit. This had led to several deaths and injuries to both the local people and coalition forces through insurgency. Foreign troops who were seen as liberators in the wake Saddam’s fall are now considered occupiers.

These arguments put across by realists across the globe criticized the Iraqi invasion and the later occupation. The inability of both the US and UK to obtain a mandate through the United Nations Security Council as well as securing the approval of the UN exacerbated the disapproval rating of the war. Again UN Resolution 1441 was arguably not an adequate mandate to warrant the invasion of Iraq. 2.6 Attempts to address the problem through U.S policies For two years after the setbacks experienced in 1996 by the Iraqi local forces who opposed Saddam Hussein, the Clinton Administration appeared reluctant to engage in further action and maintained almost no contact with the opposition. The opposition instead used these years to rebuild and revitalise their differences and organisations, although with mixed success. Even though the U.S was still aiming for regime change and was prepared to work with the opposition, the Secretary of State Madeline Albright testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on 26 February 1998 that it would be “wrong to create false or unsustainable expectations” about what U.S support for the opposition could achieve.

Again Samuel Berger, who was the National Security Adviser, held the view that renewed U.S support for the opposition could tarnish the image of the U.S with the unwanted choice of being drawn into a civil war in Iraq or abandoning its allies. Again the U.S feared this might lead them to supporting an opposition that would succeed Saddam but without U.S interests at heart. The U.S was also barred from attempts to assassinate a foreign leader under the Reagan Administration Executive order (EO 12333), which the Clinton administration was not prepared to repeal or skirt in the case of Saddam Hussein.

Again while some members within the Administration advocated the backing of the local opposition, the Administration was much more interested in keeping the options open, real or apparent, of renewing support to opposition groups. It was believed by some that U.S contact with the opposition gave the United States dominance over Saddam Hussein. Some believed that, even if the opposition did not overthrow Saddam, it could place pressure on the regime and tie him down militarily. According to the Congressional Research Service, the INC members visited Washington in mid-February 1998 and were received by State Department and National Security Council officials, as well as Members of Congress. In their meetings, the INC asked for $100 million in new U.S. covert assistance in a plan to rebuild its presence in Iraq and, ultimately, to declare a provisional government. If coupled with the US establishment of a country-wide no fly zone and total military exclusion zones in Iraq, the INC said it could precipitate wholesale military defections that would lead to the fall of Saddam Hussein. The INC representatives received no specific Administration commitments, according to observers.

Iraq’s obstruction of U.N. weapons of mass destruction (WMD) inspections in 1997 to 1998 led to growing congressional calls for the overthrow of Saddam, even though no one in Congress or beyond was advocating a U.S led military occupation to accomplish that goal. This was later made formal by a regime change policy with the Congress approval in May 1998 of $5million in Economic Support Funds (ESF) for the opposition and $5 million for Radio Free Iraq, under the direction of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). This radio service was in operation by October 1998, from Prague. The ESF allocated $3 million to overt programmes to coordinate and promote cohesion among the various opposition groups as well as highlighting violations of U.N resolutions. The remainder of $2 million was to be used to translate and publicize documented evidence of alleged Iraqi war crimes which were retrieved from the Kurdish north, placed on 176 CD-ROM diskettes, and translated and analyzed by experts under contract to the U.S. government.

As Wheeler argues ‘Washington’s nightmare scenario is that a group like al-Qaeda will continue with its WMD programme and the Bush doctrine is the administration’s response to this danger. The invasion of Iraq led by the United States represented a new national security policy that came to be known as the Bush Doctrine. For five decades after World War II (1939-1945) and during the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy rested largely on deterrence and containment. The Cold War era saw the emergence of two super powers (United States and Soviet Union), both with huge arsenals of nuclear weapons as well as other weapons of mass destruction. During this period the policy of deterrence relied on mutual respect as well as keeping the opponent in check to prevent another catastrophic world war. On the other hand, the policy of containment represented the second pillar of U.S. foreign policy as outlined by an American diplomat George Kennan. He argued for the use of diplomacy with the backing of sufficient strength in conventional military forces to protect U.S. interests as well as preventing the USSR from expanding its realm of influence.

It is important to note here that with the end of the Cold War era and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. emerged as a sole world superpower and yet, America, under the foreign policies of Presidents Bush and Clinton still relied on the two concepts of deterrence and containment. Again, the trend was followed by President George Bush until a sudden dramatic change after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks even though there was no specific evidence linking Iraq to the those atrocities. It was evident in President Bush’s State of the Union message on January 29, 2003 that there had been a swift change towards a more assertive policy when Iraq was characterized as part of an “axis of evil” along with Iran and North Korea. September 2002 was earmarked as the month that U.S. foreign policy took a different dimension when the National Security Strategy of the United States was published. The U.S-led war on al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan began in early October 2001, with speculations that the administration might try to change the regime in Iraq through direct use of force as part of a second phase on the war on terror. It was reported that some U.S. officials led by Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz believed that the U.S. needed to respond strongly and precisely to the September 11 attacks by either ending or eliminating any or all regimes that harbored or supported terrorist groups.

Here Iraq had to be confronted by the Bush Administration on two public cases. These were the purported refusal of Iraq to end its WMD programs and secondly its ties to terrorist groups, with the U.S. fearing Iraq might transfer WMD for the purpose of conducting a catastrophic attack on the United States. Even though most officials in the Bush Administration did not see Iraq as an imminent threat to the U.S. security, they argued that Iraq was a “grave and gathering” threat that had to be curtailed rather than allowed to become imminent. It was therefore in the interest of the United States to act preemptively because of September 11, 2001. They further argued that this sort of action of regime change would have a further benefit of liberating the Iraqi people as well as promote stability in the Middle East.

This action by the U.S. came under heavy criticisms from most quarters. Some argued that President Bush led the United States into Iraq unilaterally with impunity. It was said that the United States risked alienating world opinion and might jeopardize the international cooperation that would be very crucial in the hunt for terrorist organizations. The Bush doctrine of preemptive war was likely to encourage the proliferation of WMD and if nothing was done, others would emulate the United States and this might result in regional conflict.

The invasion of Iraq by the coalition of the willing had long been forthcoming. The United States and United Kingdom together with their allies have been skeptical about Saddam Hussein’s regime. This regime, perceived to be amassing WMD, and Nuclear Weapons coupled with the refusal of Saddam Hussein to allow a UN delegation to inspect their weapons informed the US decision to act. The motivation for regime change was the  9/11 attack on the United States, with Iraq seen as a rogue state in possession of capabilities of WMD, a country that glorified and supported terrorist activities and with a leader who had no respect for human rights or democracy. The light on Saddam was gradually fading as Britain and US were closing in. The United Nations had failed to stop the US and British joint action, and they toppled the Saddam regime with the intention to replace it with what they termed a more democratic system and a model Iraq for the Gulf region to emulate. As at March 2010, US troops in Iraq had been estimated to be around 140,000 with an overall casualty of 4,420 yet still Iraq is marred with violence and insurgence. The withdrawal of US troops in August 2010 had mixed reactions with most people seeing it as a defeat and act of cowardice. Iraq was believed to be stable under a tyrant regime than now and this will be a lasting legacy in the history of both America and the United Kingdom. The United States left behind about 50,000 soldiers who will be serving in a non-combative role in Iraq, many believe this a clear indication that the job in Iraq is still not over.

Even after the last troops were leaving Iraq as of December 2011, there is still suicide bombing. Iraq was safer under Saddam than it is today.