5 Minute Guide: Fight for Iraq

What happened?

The full-on military battle for Iraq lasted less than two months - but its legacy was anything but short-lived.

In November 2002 the US Congress granted President Bush permission to use any means necessary to combat the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

The US administration claimed he was harbouring weapons of mass destruction.

UN Resolution 1441 called for Saddam to comply with the international community's desire for weapons inspections. Failure to comply precipitated the invasion - a conflict which was opposed by many countries, including France and China.

The war began on 20 March 2003. The US and its allies went into combat without support from the UN. In 2004 the UN secretary general Kofi Annan said the war was illegal.

Baghdad fell to the US-led invading forces, assisted by predominantly British troops, three weeks into the war and Bush announced an end to major conflict in May.

But the "end of major conflict" in Iraq was only the beginning of the battle to win control of the country.

After the installation of a US-backed government in Baghdad, the country has played host to an increasing tide of insurgency and sectarian violence from both Sunni and Shia groups.

Such was the instability that in September 2006 a transfer of operational command from US-led forces to Iraq's new army was postponed.

Three months later and the influential Iraq Study Group said the situation in Iraq was "grave and deteriorating."

Suicide attacks and car bombs became a regular feature of Iraqi life. The UN said that more than 34,000 civilians had been killed as a result of the violence in the first four years of conflict.

By 2007 many commentators were suggesting Iraq was on the brink of civil war, with Shia extremists backed by Iran on one side and Sunni extremists aided by al-Qaida on the other.

It was against this backdrop that Bush announced the 'surge' strategy in January 2007, in which 30,000 extra troops were deployed to Iraq.

The 'surge' - administered by US general David Petraeus - was credited with quelling violence and limiting the influence of al-Qaeda.

A year after the strategy began commentators said it had provided a fragile and limited success. It had helped stabilise the capital and its surroundings - but had failed to spark the political gains that could set the stage for a larger American withdrawal.

Why did it happen?

In 2003, Bush said there were three reasons to fight for Iraq: the now discredited belief Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, to stop terrorism, and to promote democracy.

However, many critics thought the war was a pretext for obtaining control of the country's oil reserves.

Now instability has ensued with a non-functioning economy, a shattered state and an insufficient number of troops to maintain security.

Some critics accuse the US of under-estimating the widespread hostility towards a foreign force on Islamic soil.

While others say the Shia majority - the immediate beneficiaries of Saddam's removal - have never forgiven the US for not backing their uprising during the Gulf War in 1991.

Others suggest the impetus behind the current insurgency is due to terrorists entering Iraq via its borders with Iran and Syria and carrying out attacks to further undermine the country's weak foundations.

What happens next?

Speaking at his State of the Union address in January 2008, Bush said:

"Our enemies in Iraq have been hit hard. They are not yet defeated, and we can still expect tough fighting ahead.

"Our objective in the coming year is to sustain and build on the gains we made in 2007, while transitioning to the next phase of our strategy.

"American troops are shifting from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission."

Critics fear the improvement in the security situation in Iraq is primarily a result of the Sunni militia - previously fighting the US - joining forces with them once they realised that only the Americans could protect them from the Shia dominated government and its militia allies.

This unwitting change of sides undermines US boasts of control, and suggests problems will arise as and when the Americans withdraw.

At the beginning of 2007, the US-led forces were knee-deep in a desperate battle to keep control of Iraq from a mixture of militia groups, terrorists and extremists.

What happens next will depend on the insurgents, and how long the US is prepared to stay in the country when there is so much antipathy to the conflict in the US.

Key players

Nouri al-Maliki
Born in 1950 to a Shia family, al-Maliki had been exiled from Iraq since 1980 after Saddam sentenced him to death.

The death sentence was as a result of al-Maliki's activities with the Islamic Dawa Party - activism he maintained in exile.

He headed the party's Jihad Office, a branch responsible for directing activists and guerrillas fighting Saddam's regime from outside of Iraq.

Returning home after Saddam's fall, he became the deputy leader of the Iraqi Interim Government, and was made prime minister in April 2006.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates
Former CIA chief Gates was officially installed as US Defence Secretary in December 2006.

Upon his appointment, Gates, born in 1943, said: "Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come."

He will play a key role in deciding whether extra troops are sent to Iraq to wrestle back control of the country.

But facing a hostile Congress, he may have trouble winning complete support for a conflict which, by 2007, had cost the US $300bn and the lives of 3,000 US soldiers.

General David Patraeu
Petraeus was born in 1952 to Dutch-American parents. He grew up in the upstate New York town of Cornwall, within spitting distance of West Point, America's military academy. He graduated from West Point in the top 5 per cent of his class, after which he worked his way up to general.

Being too late for Vietnam - and having a desk job in the Gulf War - Petraeus did not see conflict until Iraq. However, it is perhaps the general's academic background which is of most interest.

In the 1970s he wrote a PhD in international relations at Princeton entitled: The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam.

In one passage he wrote: "Vietnam was an extremely painful reminder that, when it comes to intervention, time and patience are not American virtues in abundant supply."

Share this article

Send this article to a friend »

• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Reddit
• Facebook
• StumbleUpon

What are these?