U.S.-led occupation of Iraq
The occupation of Iraq led by the government and military of the United States, with significant support from the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland and varying levels of assistance from Japan and several other allied countries, followed the collapse of Saddam Hussein's government caused by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. United States military and civilian officials, as well as some British officials, began the process of securing Iraq's infrastructure and rebuilding its governmental structures.Central authority for the occupation was given to the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. From April to May of 2003 the ORHA was led by General Jay Garner. He was later replaced by U.S. civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer. Some powers are being shared with an appointed Iraqi Governing Council.
Bremer has announced that full sovereignty and control of Iraq will be given to an Iraqi government by June 30, 2004. On March 8, 2004 an interim constitution, the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period was created by the governing council, which outlines how the sovereignty will be formally transferred.
The following nations have troops serving in Iraq in some capacity:
Participating nations
In addition to regular troops there are roughly 20,000 Private military contractors in Iraq [1], as for example Blackwater USA and others.
In the initial period of the occupation, there were particularly widespread law and order problems, including heavy looting, notably at the National Museum of Iraq, nuclear sites, and other facilities. This followed the collapse of the Saddam government and the disappearance of much of the traditional security infrastructure, which the occupying forces had been relying on to carry out most of the necessary police work.
Prior to the invasion, the U.S. promised a speedy transition to a democratic government, and the initial outline included the creation of an Iraqi constitution and the active role of Iraqis in the process of establishing a new government as well as in the interim authority. United States officials' public pronouncements have emphasized that the US invasion was not about occupation, but about liberation. From before the invasion until mid-May 2003, U.S. officials emphasized that an Iraqi-led government would be established "as soon as possible". Expectations of a quick handover faded as resistance to the occupation remained and fighting continued.
In November 2003, Paul Bremer announced the plan to turn political authority to the Iraqi governing council by June 30, 2004 with the expectation that a constitution would then be drawn up. The United States has stated its plans to enter into a security agreement with the new Iraqi government and maintain military authority until a new Iraqi army is established. The Bush Admnistration has remained committed to this date despite being unable to identify the interim Iraqi government and the unstable security situation.
The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority has, for administrative purposes, divided Iraq into three security zones: a northern zone in the Mosul - Kirkuk region, a central zone in the Baghdad - Tikrit region and a southern zone in the Basra - Nasiriya region. The northern and central zones are garrisoned by US troops, while the southern zone is garrisoned by Polish troops (around Nasiriya) and British troops (around Basra). [1]
Basic services such as water, electricity, and sanitation have been slow to be restored. Claims have been made that this is a serious shortcoming of the occupation to date and has engendered widespread resentment among the civilian population.
The establishment of a new civilian government of Iraq was greatly complicated by the religious divisions between the majority Shi'ite population and the formerly ruling Sunni class. Moreover, all the people in Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party were tainted by the association. Also, in northern Iraq, Kurds had already had effectively autonomous rule for 12 years under the protection of the no-fly zone.
On May 16, 2003, U.S. officials abandoned the plan to cede authority to a democratically chosen interim civilian Iraqi government (similar to what had happened in Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan) and presented a resolution to the U.N. to give the United States and Britain broad power and lift economic sanctions on Iraq, allowing the occupying countries authority to use oil resources to pay for rebuilding the country. Passage of the resolution allowed them to appoint an interim government by themselves.
On July 13, 2003, an Iraqi Governing Council was appointed by Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator L. Paul Bremer.
On May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council voted 14-0 to give the United States and Britain the power to govern Iraq and use its oil resources to rebuild the country. Resolution 1483 removed nearly 13 years of economic sanctions originally imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The resolution allows U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to appoint a special representative to work with U.S. and British administrators on reconstruction, humanitarian aid, and the creation of a new government. The resolution created a new Development Fund for Iraq, which will collect funds from oil sales. The fund will be run by the United States and Britain to rebuild the country, and it will be overseen by a new advisory body composed of the United Nations and international financial institutions. It will begin its existence with a $1 billion deposit, funds transferred from the United Nation's oil-for-food account. The oil-for-food program will be phased out over a six month period. The resolution requires a one-year review, a step sought by both Germany and France. Syria, which was the sole Arab state represented on the council, was absent from the meeting.
On August 14, 2003, the UN Security Council voted 14-0 to "welcome" the creation of the Iraqi Governing Council. Resolution 1500 stopped short of formally recognizing the governing council as Iraq's legitimate governing body but called it an "important step" towards creating a sovereign government.
For several months the United States maintained that it intended to convene a constitutional convention, composed of influential Iraqis. The deadline for this convention was pushed back further and further by the U.S. interim authority until it appeared to have been suspended indefinitely. However, European demands for an early election and Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani insistence for them eventually forced the United States to let the appointed Governing Council serve this function.
New politicians were appointed to several positions during the occupation, though they were not elected. Local and regional positions (e.g. mayors, governors) were chosen from a select group of individuals (including ex-Ba'ath party officials) in an attempt to avoid the election of people opposed to the American and British presence, including religious clerics and other officials who are considered to be overly radical or dangerous.
Though some protested the lack of initial democracy, in fairness, it should be pointed out that in its ideal form democracy requires a civil society to function effectively and hold honest elections. Iraq never was a democracy and one-party rule had left the country ill-qualified to function as one. It was therefore very technically difficult, though not impossible, to hold elections so quickly after the war. In recent months however, civil society at a local level shows signs of recovery in some areas of Iraq. However, much to American disquiet it largely seems to be based around religious figures.
On November 15, the Iraqi Governing Council, announced that a transitional government would take over in June from the U.S.-led powers, and that an elected government would follow by the end of 2005 once a constitution had been drafted and ratified. The transitional government would be selected in June 2004 by a transitional council formed in May 2004.
The Governing Council revealed the timetable after the United States Government, in reaction to significant terrorist and insurgent activity against occupying troops and also aid organisations, abandoned its earlier plan that a sovereign government would take charge only after creating a constitution and elections held. Jalal Talabani, current chairman of the council, said the transition would involve "the creation of a permanent constitution by an elected council, directly elected by the people, and also the election of a new government according to the articles of this new constitution before the end of 2005."
In March of 2004 an interim constitution was formally created, called the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period. The document calls for the creation of an elected National Assembly to take place no later than January of 2005.
The occupation was resisted from forces inside Iraq. In the initial months of the occupation, dozens of Iraqis were shot in anti-American demonstrations, mostly in the nation's Shi'a Muslim parts. Ayatollah Sayed Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, who returned to Iraq after decades in exile shortly after the occupation began, said: "We are not afraid of the British or American troops. This country wants to keep its sovereignty and the forces of the coalition must leave it."
In the months following the start of the occupation, American and British deaths averaged one a day, in sniper attacks, suicide bombings at road checkpoints and ambushes. Some attacks against occupying troops seem prompted by motivations of revenge (e.g., when six British soldiers were killed by angry Iraqis after they shot four demonstrators at a protest).
As the summer of 2003 gave way to autumn, the pattern of anti-occupation attacks shifted to include repeated, deadly suicide car bombings against high-profile targets in Baghdad, such as the headquarters of the U.N. and the Red Cross, foreign embassies, and police stations of the newly-formed post-Saddam Iraqi police force. At the same time, attacks on individual U.S. soldiers and vehicles, often in the form of buried roadside bombs, went on.
The casualties suffered by coalition troops during the occupation quickly grew to several times the number killed during the invasion itself (see Casualties in the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq).
Though journalists reported that many residents of the Iraqi capital deplored the violence and appreciated coalition efforts to bring stability, it was clear by autumn that there were groups present in the country determined to continue violent resistance. How much these groups might be directed by Saddam Hussein or diehard Ba'ath Party members, and how much by non-Iraqi Islamic extremists such as al Qaeda, was difficult to know from media reports and official statements.
Some media reports have reported that Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda (or linked organisations) have entered into an unholy alliance, whereby the secularist Saddamists supply the weapons and al Qaeda provides the fanatical personnel. Although Saddam supported terrorist groups, reports that he had ties to al Qaeda are, as of yet, unconfirmed; see Iraq and the War on Terrorism. By occupying Iraq the US has created a new frontline, and may possibly have allied together two violently opposed organisations. It is not clear whether this was an intended or unintended consequence.
Resistance to the occupation is particularly virulent in the Sunni centre of Iraq, which was the source of Saddam's power base. British troops have had a much easier time policing the Shi'a south; though this may also have something to do with their far greater experience at policing civilian areas gained in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Until the 2004 spring uprising, there are virtually no attacks on coalition forces in Polish (a.k.a multinational) zone, and most victims of it are from local shi'ite civilian population.
In late June of 2003 there was some public debate in the U. S. as to whether the resistance could be characterized as a guerrilla war.
On June 17th, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid said that forces in Iraq were "conducting what I would describe as a classical guerrilla-type campaign against us. It's low-intensity conflict in our doctrinal terms, but it's war however you describe it." In a statement to Congress on June 18th, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said "There's a guerrilla war there but we can win it."
However, U. S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, on June 31st, refused to accept the characterization of the situation in Iraq as a "guerrilla war" and blamed resistance on five groups:
Sabotage of water and oil pipelines is part of the resistance of the Iraqi militantss. The United States had intended to quickly rebuild Iraqi social infrastructure and oil infrastructure for production back to pre-war levels, but destruction of pipelines crippled this initiative.
The northern oil pipeline to Turkey fell to sabotage, when it was destroyed immediately following the U.S. announcement of the intent to ship oil out via that route, and on June 23 a major pipe junction leading to Syria and Lebanon was destroyed. Together these attacks crippled much of the ability to transport northern Iraqi oil. In the south an attack on June 22 destroyed the main oil pipeline leading from southern oil fields to the Baghdad oil refineries. In addition widespread looting, which contractors believe to be systematic and intended as sabotage, has crippled the attempt to bring production in the supergiant Rumaila oil field back up to speed.
Some of the groups that have claimed responsibility for attacks on the coalition occupying forces and sabotage include the "Iraqi National Front of Fedayeen", "The Snake Party", and "The Return".
For more information, see Iraqi resistance.
The United States arrested one of al-Sadr's top deputies and later announced the existence of a three-month-old arrest warrant, issued by an Iraqi judge, on al-Sadr, claiming that he was responsible for the killing of Abdul Majid al-Khoei [1], a Shiite cleric aligned with both Ayatollah Sistani and the US-led coalition, and son of the Grand Ayatollah Abdul-Qasim al-Khoei (who died in 1992). The warrant itself inspired further opposition, as Khoei's own followers blamed Baathists for the murder. The US-appointed Iraqi Minister of Justice stated that he had no knowledge of the warrant. The Iraqi Jurists Association declared the warrant "illegal".
On March 31, the world witnessed the killing of four Blackwater employees in Fallujah. At the time of their ambush, these employees were providing security for food shipments.[1]
Some of Blackwater's employees have engaged in armed defense of installations. Insofar as these workers engage in aggressive combat, they could be considered as combatant mercenaries.
The Fallujah counteroffensive Operation Vigilant Resolve was launched on April 5. Roads leading into the city had been closed earlier. When the US marines tried to enter the city fierce fighting erupted. The marines answered by bringing in tanks and helicopters trying to overcome the opposition. However, this caused a large number of casualties and over 600 people, including women and children, have died in Fallujah during the first week of the offensiveclass="external">[1
The marines managed to enter parts of the city but on April 9 the US called for a cease-fire. Though there have been many reports that the truce wasn't holding, the level of fighting has reduced substantially.
During this period of relative calm the US marines are encircling Fallujah with an earthwall, trying to control acces to the city. Though they allow women and children to leave the city, when a male tries to leave, he is sent back.
Western journalist no longer report from Fallujah, but Arab news-organisations, including al-Jazeera are still reporting from the city. The Americans are often critical about these reports.
At the same time the US was launching its offensive against Fallujah, Muqtada al-Sadr planned his revolt against the Americans. On April 4 an American patrol was ambushed in Sadr-City resulting in the deaths of 8 soldiers. The next days fighting erupted in many cities in southern Iraq, including Karbala,Kut, Nassiriya and Basra.
At this point it is still not known what prompted al-Sadr to start his revolt. Likely is that al-Sadr felt threatened when his newspaper was closed down and his senior-aid arrested. The revolt started thus as a response to American actions.
During the first few days of the uprising al-Sadr stayed in Kufa were he tradionally had a large following. On April 7 he moved to Najaf, into a building close to the shrine of the Imam Ali, the holiest shrine in the Shia faith.
After fierce fighting during the first days of the uprising, his followers took control over many cities in southern Iraq. In Kut the Ukranian occupational contingent was forced out of the city. The Italians were contained inside their base in Nassiriya and in Basra the governor's palace was occupied. In Karbala Polish and Bulgarian forces were able to hold their own after battle lasting whole night.
The Americans reacted by dispensing a reactionary force on April 8 to Kut, forcing al-Sadr followers to melt away into the city's population. The same happened in most of the other cities and control was nominally ceded. Only in Najaf did the Americans not enter the city.
The US has send 2500 marines to Najaf to try to 'arrest or kill' al-Sadr.
At the moment al-Sadr is protected by his fellow Shi'ite leaders who have forbidden the Americans to enter the city. Negotiations are going on between al-Sadr and other leaders to find a solution to the stand-off.
In response to the US offensives, the Iraqi resistance took many foreign hostages. This included citizens of both coalition members, and countries opposed to the invasion. To date this includes people from South Korea, Japan, Great Britain, Israel, America, Canada, Italy, China, Russia, and Ukraine.
The hostage taking appears to be unco-ordinated with different groups making various demands, and some hostages being released, whilst others are killed. Al-Sadr has denied any involvement with the hostage taking.
As a result of the uprisings U.S. General John Abizaid, has requested an addition 10,000 troops be sent to Iraq after admitting that a number of Iraqi security personel had abandons their posts or joined the insurgents. On April 16, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield anounced that he had approved General Abizaid's request and had extented the tour of roughly 20,000 soldiers, who were scheduled to be rotated out of Iraq, by three months.
A fresh mass grave was found near Ramadi, containing the bodies of over 350 Iraqis [1].
A few days after a terrorist attack at Madrid, popular opposition to the occupation was reinvigorated in Spain and the ruling Partido Popular was accused of deceiving the public by blaming the attack on ETA rather than fundamentalist Muslims. A new government was elected and announced that they no longer support the United States occupation of Iraq and are withdrawing all of their troops. The prime minister elect JosÃÂé Luis RodrÃÂÃÂguez Zapatero of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party who ousted former conservative prime minister Jose Maria Aznar stated, "The occupation is a fiasco. There have been almost more deaths after the war than during the war," he said. "The occupying forces have not allowed the United Nations to take control of the situation." On April 17, 2004, Zapatero ordered the immediate withdrawal of Spanish troops to avoid being involved in an anticipated struggle for the Shiite holy city of Najaf.
Following on the heels of this, several other nations that once formed the Coalition of the Willing have begun to balk at their role. The Dutch refused a US offer to commit their troops to Iraq past June 30, while Honduran officials stated that they plan to withdraw their troops as well - the announcement coming one day after they had stated that they would stay. The troops of the Dominican Republic will leave Iraq as soon as possible. It is speculated that El Salvador and Guatemala will likely follow suit.
South Korea has cancelled its plans to deploy an additional 3,600 troops to around Kirkuk (opting instead for regions they consider more stable), which may prove problematic to US military planners.
On the heels of the 2004 spring uprising, Kazakhstan confined its 30 troops to their headquarters indefinitely, and announced that they will be withdrawn after its tour ends in May. New Zealand has announced that it will withdraw its 60 troops in September, and Singapore has announced that its 200 troops have returned home and that it has no plans to send any further troops. Thailand, who was already planning not to renew their troop commitment after September, has announced that it is investigating withdrawing its troops before the June 30 transition. Portugal has announced a similar investigation. The Phillipines have put a hold on new deployments and are planning to pull out. Bulgaria isn't pulling out, but is letting any of its troops who want to leave go home; 62 out of 480 had left as of April 17th. Nicaragua is leaving as well, claiming that they are too poor to pay for their deployment. President Ricardo Maduro announced that the troops will be pulled out shortly Many other nations, while staying in, are facing strong opposition at home and have elections coming up soon (such as Australia and Denmark).
Many nations that have announced withdrawal plans or are considering them have stated that they may reconsider if there is a new UN resolution that grants the UN more authority in Iraq.
Nations No longer Participating
Law and order problems
U.S.-led occupation
Civilian government
The Iraq Interim Governing Council.United Nations Resolutions
Elections
Resistance to the occupation
Guerrilla war
"That doesn't make it anything like a guerrilla war or an organized resistance," Rumsfeld said. "It makes it like five different things going on [in which the groups] are functioning more like terrorists."Sabotage
Spring 2004 Uprisings
Fallujah
Muqtada al-Sadr
Hostages
Fall-out
Withdrawal from Iraq by coalition members
See also
External links and references
Related Amnesty International links
