Us_Intervention_in_Iraq

U.S. military intervention in Iraq in 2003 1. The National Security Strategy of theUnited States after the attacks of September 11, 2001 – Problems with Iraq After the actions that the different effect in the regime of Saddam Hussein brought the ambiguity of the United States, and conducted preventive diplomacy towards Iraq came to the point at which Iraq was at the heart of the unresolved problems of the international community. He returned to prominence as a consequence of the unresolved problems of the attack on America September 11, 2001 overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime has become the second goal in the U.S. fight against terrorism. The first goal was the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and there in hiding Osama bin Laden. The events of 11 September 2001 were challenging for the measure announced in the early Bush administration changes to the strategy of relations with foreign countries. The coup has revealed that the threat of terrorism is a direct and immediate. Surprised the Americans realized how much their country is vulnerable to asymmetric threats from groups who, without being able to meet the military might of the United States, back to the unconventional methods of operation. He forced the administration to a speedy review of priorities in national security policy and the subordination of its fight against terrorism. The consequence of these changes were revalue the national security strategy. Contrary to announcements from the period of the election campaign of 2000 and the first months of his presidency not only has limited U.S. involvement in the international arena, but on the contrary - it has expanded. Due to the nature and scale of the engagement policy of the Bush team demonstrates the continuity of U.S. foreign policy and to continue the line adopted by the United States after the Second World War. At the same time, despite the suspicion, widespread since 11 September 2001 attack did not cause the retreat from unilateralism and a return to multilateralism in American politics. As announced in September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States government clearly declared its readiness to cooperate with the international community for peace and freedom around the world and the liberalization of international trade. The most significant change in strategy for relations with foreign countries have occurred in the field of security. They relate to the mode of action of the United States in the international arena and the exercise of leadership by the United States. Administration to review its current military strategy, dating back to the Cold War. The State of the Message (29 January 2002) president announced that it will not allow that the terrorists and regimes cooperating with them, which scored - describing them as "axis of evil" (axis of evil) - North Korea, Iran and Iraq , came into possession of weapons of mass destruction. In a speech at West Point 2 June 2002, Bush emphasized the inefficiency - in conjunction with the emergence of new types of threats - the threat of deterrence based on the massive retaliation. Deterrence was not the basis for U.S. strategy. In the fight against terrorists and rugue states admitted providing vital internal security and the creation of a missile defense system. At the same time these activities considered to be insufficient without the offensive operations, designed to overcome the enemy before he has time to achieve its plans. He said that in order to prevent possible attacks, so as to prevent threats to materialize, the United States must be ready to attack the enemy first (pre-emptive defense). This kind of strategy was against hostile countries and terrorist groups, including the concept of preventive war, which you can use weapons, even without direct proof of the upcoming attack on the United States or its allies. United States of America clearly identified this line: "While the United States will constantly strive to ensure the support of the international community will not hesitate to act alone when necessary to fulfill our right to self-defense through prevenient action against terrorists, to prevent the damage they can do to our nation and our country. " Accompanied by strong, stronger than ever before to highlight the need to maintain military superiority (pre-eminence) - The United States must be strong enough to "deter adversaries from seeking to expand military arsenals in the hopes to surpass the United States or to catch them." At the end of 2002, the Bush administration announced that the United States' answer to overwhelming force, including all options, to use biological weapons, chemical, radiological or nuclear against the nation, its troops or its allies. " According to the U.S. forces adapt to new challenges. The annual report of the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in August 2002, stresses the need to replace the traditional triad of strategic forces (land, sea and air offensive nuclear forces) with a new triad of offensive capabilities of conventional and nuclear forces, active and passive defense, and efficient infrastructure, "the ability to answers "strategic threat. The National Security Strategy in the international situation has been assessed as dangerous and complex, shaped under the influence of lethal threats posed by "roguish country" (rogue states) and terrorists. Among the priorities in the security field in the first place erected to combat terrorist organizations with global reach, the second - for a weakening of regional conflicts, on the third - the failure to terrorists and "roguish state" came into possession of weapons of mass destruction. The rank Strategy " anticipatory strikes "has increased considerably. Indeed, Washington has decided to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means more actively than before, and the methods used (diplomacy, arms control, multilateral export controls) is still considered useful but not sufficient. To preserve freedom of action, White House objected to attempts to tighten control regime in the Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons, and departed from the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. Does not preclude the use - if necessary - of nuclear weapons. Changes in national security strategy was accompanied by the largest - since the Reagan administration - the increase in expenditure on armaments. In October 2002, Congress passed a military budget for 2003 amounting to 355 billion dollars, increasing it - as compared with the previous year - about 37 billion dollars. The budget of over $ 7 billion was spent on building a missile defense system. The State of the message delivered on 29 January 2003 the president announced increased spending to combat bioterrorism and use $ 6 billion on Project bioshield. Defense spending reached a total expenditure exceeding the ceiling for an additional five countries (Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Germany) participating in the most serious in the world cost of armaments. As a result of changes in the priorities of the American thinking about the safety of President George W. Bush, supported by many leading politicians, representing the kernel of his administration, pointed to Iraq as the main source of instability in the emerging international order. The fact that Iraq's non-compliance resulting from the decisions of the Security Council resolutions in the control of military capability has been used to justify the intransigent attitude, providing the possibility of using military force to oust Saddam Hussein. 2. The issue of tackling the Iraqi tensions in the international arena Sharp and uncompromising position of the authorities in Washington to the Iraqi regime aroused considerable controversy in the world. Only thing which state that in a way that supported the absolute position of the United States, was the United Kingdom. Evidence of this has been repeatedly expressed a common position in the Security Council (refusal to mitigate the international sanctions regime), as well as joint military action in the Gulf region (for example, the British participation in Operation "Desert Fox" and in patrolling the airspace over northern and southern Iraq). In turn, the other great powers - permanent members of the Security Council, so the PRC, France, and Russia - seemed to show greater understanding for the demands of Iraqi demanding relaxation of restrictions imposed on him, and for the Iraqi resistance to the demands to have full control of its defense capabilities. It seems that it was not in this case, for permission to rebuild Iraq's military power, but rather to recognize a somewhat different philosophy, namely the granting of options to mitigate the regime of international inspections in exchange for progress in the cooperation of Iraq's disarmament through realized in accordance with the recommendations of the Security Council resolutions. In other words, balanced between these three countries to pay less stringent treatment of Iraq in exchange for a progressive co-operation, while the uncompromising position of the U.S. established a need to advance Iraq's full compliance with the obligations imposed before the problem of leniency could stand on the agenda. Critics pointed to the U.S. position that the policy complies with the rule "all or nothing" difficult final decision on Iraq, encouraging the hardening position of Baghdad. By contrast, proponents of a hard course pointed to a lack of credibility of the regime in Baghdad as a partner for cooperation and any sign of stiffening of his position was regarded as confirming the view that President Saddam Hussein is not interested in cooperation with the international community treats it as an instrument to mask the real, aggressive targets ( rebuilding military capability, including weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery), and any easing of the international control regime only facilitate the return of Iraq policy from a position of strength. Washington's intransigent policy toward Iraq and raised concerns in the Arab world. These countries feared the growth of sentiments of social radicalism, possibly caused by an American attack against a Member who is a part of the Arab world. Regardless of the political ties, strategic and economic connecting a large part of Middle Eastern countries with American power, the prospect of further isolating Iraq, the external pressure on Baghdad and the threat of conflict in which Iraqis (and therefore part of the Arab nation) they would subject to external pressures, aroused fears of Arab leaders opportunity to further destabilize the situation in the region and its evolution towards an unfavorable current ruling elite. Irrespective of the fact that the interests of Arab states (the elites) are pushing them to work closely with Washington, the world population of this region show a high level of hostility to the sole superpower. Unequivocal support given by the United States in the Arab-Israeli conflict Jewish state is one of the most important sources of anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim world. Similar reactions also cause permanent presence of U.S. forces in some countries in the region (this is especially evident in Saudi Arabia, where the war for the liberation of Kuwait stationed U.S. forces as a guarantor of security of the region and the geopolitical status quo, but for many that Arab radicals presence is a testament to American imperialism and is often regarded as a means to transfer the land the Arab-Muslim civilization, culturally alien Western values). Landmark events associated with the situation around Iraq, leading eventually to military decisions, took place from September 2002, the tone of statements of representatives of the U.S. authorities pointed to the growing determination to remove Saddam Hussein from power and accused of posing a threat to Iraq's U.S. security tied up by increased diplomatic efforts to create a coalition of states capable of decisive action led by the United States. Addressed the special treatment of American diplomats, politicians and representatives from steel four other countries having the status of permanent members of UN Security Council, which resulted from efforts to push through a resolution on this forum to justify a hard line against Iraq, as expected, the Bush administration. In October 2002, the first in the House of Representatives and the Senate then adopted by a large majority a resolution giving the president the right to use force in Iraq. It created the impression that America is united on this issue. This was an important asset to the White House, Saddam indicating that his fate is almost sealed. This gave the arguments of American diplomats in the negotiations on Security Council Resolution. Finally, 8 November 2002, Resolution 1441 was unanimously adopted, even with the support of Syria, the only Arab country on the Security Council. Admittance resolution ordered Iraq disarmament inspectors, who should resume within a month search for weapons, and make available experts for all buildings, equipment and documents. Iraq had to adopt a resolution within 7 days, as of 8 December 2002 he was obliged to give the inspectors all the information on its arms program. The resolution, but did not contain a valid record for the U.S. to allow use military power if Iraq failed to comply with recommendations, was certainly a success of the White House. At that time, the Gulf region sent more troops soldiers. In mid-October the Americans and, to a lesser extent the British were already in the region of the world about 60 thousand soldiers (in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Turkey and the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean) and also to Udejd in Qatar moved part of the U.S. military headquarters in California, there is also planned to send combat aircraft and spy. The Americans argued that this demonstration of force is a pressure on Hussein's regime and force it to comply with the resolutions. Two days before the deadline for Baghdad unconditionally accepted UN resolutions requiring him to complete disarmament. A few days later, inspectors returned to Iraq. Their boss was a Swedish diplomat Hans Blix. Over 100 inspectors have checked nearly 700 suspected sites, including 8 Saddam's palaces. Permanent on-site inspections, and although Blix admitted that Iraq did not hinder the work inspectors, but there were problems such as the interrogation of Iraqi scientists. In mid-January, inspectors found warheads designed to carry chemical cargoes, in accordance with UN resolutions at the beginning of the nineties Baghdad must destroy. Throughout the Gulf arrived American troops, equipment and facilities. In the area of possible conflict in mid-January 2003, sent 2 aircraft, which - as assumed - will play a key role in the campaign prior to land bombardments of Iraq. There was a reasonable suspicion that the Americans have already decided on military intervention and diplomacy are only a smokescreen, as far as the liquidation of the regime of Saddam Hussein, and not just its disarmament. Commentators also stressed that the delay of several weeks even for the military arm, the gathering of forces to conduct a successful attack will end before the end of February and March. Parallel diplomacy of the United States conducted a wide-ranging campaign to increase public support for plans for intervention in Iraq. However, the attitude of some European allies, especially France and Germany confirmed that Washington can not count on their support. Berlin insisted that the German armed forces will not take part in the war against Iraq, even if she had a UN mandate. Existing differences serve hardening position of Baghdad and Saddam allowed the play that part for their own interests. He knew that there was no against him a firm unanimous coalition. The period from November 2002, when adopted Resolution 1441, to March 2003 was rich in full of tension and difficult especially for the United States, moments. Although initially the position of America - by unanimous adoption of Security Council resolutions - is strengthened, it soon felt the superpower, how much can be alone, being with his heyday and power. The position of the Bush administration and its definitely on the supported intervention in Iraq, alongside the UK, the governments of Italy, Spain, Denmark and most eastern European countries, but France, Germany, Russia and the great part of European public opinion, rejected the war, regardless of whether the mandate of the UN lack thereof. Europe, especially France and Germany, she felt an irresistible need to oppose U.S. domination, to manifest their independence of action and, on the occasion to play an important role in global politics. Fearing that the effect of such behavior will weaken the U.S. role and position in Europe and irreversible rupture in transatlantic relations, 8 European countries, including United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Poland in the last days of January 2003 made a special letter in which he expressed support for a tough U.S. policy towards Iraq. Talking to Americans: "We were and still are friends and allies", the signatories of the letter attempted to build up the transatlantic relationship, rightly feel that you can not create European unity at the expense of relations with America. It would be a triumph of unearned because of Saddam Hussein. Poland and other countries of Central and Eastern Europe which have signed the "letter of eight," and sent a little later, maintained the same spirit of "lists nine" by the French president was brutally penalized and instructed that they should "sit quietly". The fact that the United States can not absolutely count on all his allies, emerged with even greater force when the U.S. began to seek diplomacy at the UN to adopt a resolution authorizing military intervention in Iraq. Arguments for its adoption sought to provide the Secretary of State Powell, who on 5 February 2003 occurred in the Security Council. At the time of one and half hour, tracking live by viewers around the world almost, the head of American diplomacy, he tried to put the picture of Iraqi deception and cheating of inspectors. Using satellite images and interviews of Iraqi military records, he argued that Iraq was hiding banned weapons and the suspect equipment. Evidence presented were not conclusive character, as the main opponents of U.S. plans for war in the Security Council was only circumstantial evidence. Pressured its allies and the UN is not providing any formal evidence. In this situation, the casting had to be another report of inspectors, whose presentation is scheduled for 14 February 2003, however, Blix’s document and the debate in the Security Council showed mainly how deep the divisions are between the U.S. and Great Britain and other members of that body. The head of the UN inspectors found that after 60 days of the inspection is still not able to assess whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. For Washington and London had a reason to launch an attack, to Paris, Berlin and Moscow - to continue and strengthen inspections. No confirmation from the inspectors, that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq made it difficult for the Bush administration had decided on surgery. All the more incumbent important allies in the fight against terrorism did not see the justification for war with Iraq. The decision to use force again postponed. However, prevailed among the neo-conservative views that the response to the actions of Saddam descend from the crimes have been committed by him repeatedly violating the law of nations, and atrocities against the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, as well as the resulting stubbornness in refusing to carry out solutions to the resolution. In Washington, reasoning as follows: if now derogates from the attack on Iraq, the credibility of American power in the war against terrorism could suffer serious and perhaps irreparable prejudice. In this situation, no UN mandate was no longer the Bush administration no obstacle, which expressed the Bush associates, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney , Richard Perle. Moreover, most government lawyers in the U.S. White House argued that the violations by Baghdad previous 17 UN resolutions is a sufficient reason for war. It was felt, too, that American diplomacy has done much to convince the international community to work together. Extending the mission of inspectors and postpone indefinitely a decision would be the word "ostrich policy" avoiding responsibility. So it was decided to operate. More 16 March 2003 meeting "summit" closest allies on Iraq - the U.S. president, British prime minister and head of the Spanish Government Jose Maria Aznar - given Saddam one last chance, appealing to him to leave Iraq. 3. Legality of intervention in Iraq in light of the International Law War since the dawn of history, is a phenomenon closely associated with the development of civilization. Since 3600 BC, there were only about 300 years of peace. It is estimated that each year there were 13 wars. At that time there were more than 14.5 thousand wars, which killed some 3.5 billion people. Centuries earlier in what is the cause of wars, looking for answers, arguments. These investigations have found their reflection in a variety of views supporters and opponents of the war. For the first group we include, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbs, Nicollo Machiavelli, Hegel, General Carl von Clausevitza. For the opponents have included Emmanuel Kant, Albert Einstein, Mahatma Gandhi. In the language of General von Clausevitza we can say that "the war is an act of violence aimed at forcing the enemy to fulfill our will.” What motivation is really guided by the invasion of Iraq know only Anglo-Saxon decision-makers. However, you can consider whether this war was consistent with international law or the law of armed conflict was observed. The issue that dominated the present armed conflict is the question of compliance with the basic act of the United Nations - the UN Charter, so that the intervention was legal. In assessing its legality must be noted that the two approaches are formulated. One, represented by a minority of specialists and formulated in the official declarations of American and British attempts to derive legitimacy from Security Council resolution 1441. The opposite position refers to a strict interpretation of the Charter of the United Nations and decision-making by the Security Council. In the Charter of the United Nations completely banned the use of force and requires Member States to settle disputes exclusively by peaceful means. If the standard Article.2 (4) of the UN Charter be interpreted in a restrictive manner, the possibility of the use of force would be considered only as an act of self defense, with the consent of the Security Council, or against enemy states. Currently, the UN should be in 191 countries including Iraq. An attack on a signatory of the UN Charter would be the least inconsistent with its provisions. But we accept the idea that the prohibition contained in Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter will not be absolute. Can be formulated that prohibition against the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the principles of the UN Charter. Can be justified that the use of force occurs when it is in contradiction with the provisions of the Charter, to defend the standards contained therein. We can conclude that for purposes consistent with the UN Charter to use force against a third country to enforce the fulfillment of the obligations of a third country is allowed. An example might be a need to protect human rights in accordance with the UN Charter. Going further means of understanding the UN Charter, could be considered part VII of the Charter. He says that the Security Council decides what measures should be applied in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. When non-violent means of the armed forces do not bring expected results, the Security Council may carry out military action - air force, marine and land - as it may deem necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. We also consider Article 51 of the UN Charter speaks of the right of individual or collective self-defense. But do not authorize "preventive defense" or "pre-emptive self-defense" (preemptive self defense). Military operation directed against a State without its consent and having no attachment to the provisions of the UN Charter is an action in violation of state sovereignty. 15 Sam Francis Fukuyama argued that the reason for war, the United States does not connected with under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the Bush administration does not even attempt to rely on him. So the shares of military carried out without the authorization of the Security Council in light of the United Nations Charter is illegal. Thus, neither the resolution 1441, nor any other UN resolution could not be interpreted as a casus belli the Iraq intervention. Shortly before the intervention of specialists, many observers wondered about the compatibility of the announced measures with international law. British command, meant substantial resistance requiring legal analysis. Attorney-General in Britain, Lord Goldsmith, formulated a special letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, expressing concern about the compatibility of future legal action. He also stressed that the commitment would be impossible, but after the adoption of further resolutions. Probably why I strongly pushing for the representatives of Great Britain. The draft was prepared by the United States, Britain and Spain, March 7, 2003 year, but it was withdrawn due to lack of the necessary majority support. Interestingly it is also true that such intervention could legalize after the fact, that if it turned out, however, that the territory of Iraq weapons of mass destruction were found, look at the validity of this intervention probably would improve substantially. Such action of the Security Council after the event also took place in history. When the Economic Community of West African (ECOWAS) undertook to mediate the civil war in the territory of Liberia. Diplomatic efforts have not yielded the expected results, so Member States of the military action taken in August 1990 on the territory of Liberia. Two years later, the Security Council issued Resolution endorsing the action taken by ECOWAS countries. Should also admit that the casus war, talking about efforts by Iraq to have nuclear weapons is very meaningful in the context of the entire strategic region. If Iraq managed to produce a nuclear arsenal, caused by a still greater willingness and desire to achieve the same by Iran. This could also affect the recovery of nuclear programs in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Fully arming the Middle East with atomic weapons would introduce a new element of great danger in one of the most unstable regions of the world. 19 In retrospect the lack of any evidence of possession of prohibited arms, strengthen the conviction of unjustified intervention. In defending the intervention in Iraq can be applied also to the naming of humanitarian intervention in defense of the Iraqi population. Protecting human rights is one of the most common explanations for the military action undertaken by the State against another. Relied on this type of action the international community in Somalia (Resolution 794 of December 2, 1992) or action of NATO troops in Kosovo in 1999. The question of the legality of military action in Iraq in 2003 will be a topic of much discussion in the future. Until now, there is no clearly worked out position on this issue. Experts remain divided, fully opposit positions. Bibliography: I. Internet Speech of Georg W. Bush, 16th April 2008 - - http://stosunki.pl/main319235530310,3,yisvp.htm Abu Musab al. Zarkawi, 18th April 2008 - - http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1,34292,2157611.html Abu Musab al. Zarkawi, 23th April 2008 - - http://wyborcza.pl/1,76402,3711141.html Rebels forces in Iraq, 29th April 2008 - - http://irak.pap.pl/cgi-bin/irak.pl'akcja=inst&grupa=23&ID=105 Basic facts about Iraq, 29th April 2008 - - http://irak.pap.pl/cgi-bin/irak.pl'akcja=inst&grupa=26&ID=111 II. Books and newspapers 17 marca – ultimatum, później wojna', Polityka 15.03.2003 Abbas Adnan (red.), Nowy Irak w perspektywie budowania demokratycznego państwa federacyjnego, Poznań 2006 Baczyński A., Ostrowski M., Szostakiewicz A., Wybiegamy na duże boisko, Polityka nr9/2003 Brzeziński Zbigniew, Druga szansa, Warszawa 2008 Bush mówi Arabom: zaakceptujcie wolność i demokrację, Gazeta Wyborcza 19 maja 2008 Cheney Dick, Obrona konieczna, Wprost nr 32/2003 Carl von Clausevitz, O wojnie, Warszawa 2002 Domosławski Artur, Ameryka zbuntowana, Warszawa 2002 Fukuyama Francis, Ameryka na rozdrożu, Poznań 2006 Fukuyama Francis, Budowanie państwa. Władza i ład międzynarodowy w XXI wieku, Poznań 2005 Jabłońska Agata, Rok (bez) wolności, Wprost nr 12/2004 Kiwerska Jadwiga, Świat w latach 1989-2004 - wydarzenia, konflikty, procesy, Poznań 2005 Laurent Eric, Wojna w Iraku, ukryte motywy konfliktu, Warszawa 2003 Rocznik strategiczny 2004/2005, Warszawa 2005 Rocznik strategiczny 2005/2006, Warszawa 2006 Soros George, Bańka amerykańskiej supremacji, Kraków 2004 Suchar Henryk, Zmierzch Husajna, Warszawa 2003 Szafir Henryk, Saddam wróć, Wprost nr 13/2007 Tanger Stephen, Wojny Bushów, Wrocław 2007 Tiki Balsam, Piekło zachodu, Wprost nr 41/2006 Tokarski Jan, Neokonserwatyści a polityka USA w nowym wieku, Kraków 2006