| |
|
|
| |
|
         
|
Fact Files "Operation Iraqi Freedom" Editor Assistant Editor
Iraq
Ruled by Saddam Hussein since 1979, Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves but has been under UN embargo since August 1990 for invading Kuwait.
- GEOGRAPHY: Iraq borders Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. It has a narrow outlet to the sea on the Gulf and a surface area of 438 317 square kilometers. - POPULATION: More than 22 million excluding the Kurdish-held northern Iraq. Iraqi Kurdistan has some 3.1 million inhabitants, according to the World Food Programme. - CAPITAL: Baghdad (4.5 million inhabitants). - RELIGION: Islam is the state religion. An estimated 55 percent are Shiite Muslims, while Saddam and most of his entourage are Sunnis. A Christian minority of some 750 000.
-
HISTORY:
Iraq was
under British mandate following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after the
end of World War I in 1918. Amir Faisal bin Hussein became king in 1921. Iraq pursued a pro-British policy until the monarchy was overthrown in a military revolution in July 1958 led by Abdel Karim Kassem who dissolved the legislature.
A series of governments followed, often overthrowing the previous one by force. Each forged closer links with neighbouring Arab states. In 1979, Saddam Hussein, who had been second-in-command since a coup in 1968 when his Baath party seized power, took over as president of Iraq. Saddam consolidated his control in the late 1980s and, following the war against Iran (1980-1988), announced political reforms and elections. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 led to the Gulf War which erupted on January 17, 1991. US-led multinational force expelled Iraq from Kuwait and a ceasefire was signed on February 28, 1991. An uprising in mainly Shiite southern Iraq was put down by Baghdad. An "oil-for-food" programme to ease the humanitarian impact of sanctions was signed with the United Nations in May 1996, and launched in December of that year. Kurds in northern Iraq, who have been fighting for autonomy for several decades, have run their own affairs since international intervention prevented Saddam crushing their uprising which followed the 1991 Gulf War.
- POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS: Power rests with President Saddam Hussein and the Revolution Command Council. The National Assembly is dominated by Saddam's Baath party. - ECONOMY AND RESOURCES: Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia, with an estimated 112.5 billion barrels. It is a member of OPEC. - DEBT: Western experts estimate Iraq's military debts at more than $100-billion. Iran demands another $100-billion for its war with Iraq, while compensation for the 1991 conflict could amount to another $180-billion. - DEFENCE: 375 000 soldiers in the army, 2000 in the navy, 35 000 in the air force, 17 000 in the air defence command and 45-50 000 paramilitary troops, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Iraq is a member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League.
AFP, This Present Moment 19 March 2003
Gulf War II: 'Shock and awe' strategy
IN BAGHDAD last September, Toby Dodge, a leading British specialist on Iraq, questioned Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz on his country's ability to withstand a US attack. On this eve of a likely Gulf War II, Aziz's response is instructive: "People say to me, 'You [the Iraqis] are not the Vietnamese, you have no jungles or swamps to hide in'. I reply, 'Let our cities be our swamps, and our buildings our jungles'." Taking the Iraqi at his word, troops in camps from California to Perth to Kuwait have undergone urban warfare training. War games have simulated assaults on Iraq's major cities, most notably Baghdad, the capital, and Tikrit, dictator Saddam Hussein's hometown some 160km to the north. Coalition 'defence sources' have spoken profusely about the opening attack. London's Daily Telegraph last week informed us that US and British paratroopers will assault Saddam International Airport on Baghdad's outskirts. Remarkably, the sources obliged with details of the invaders' battle plan - "in hours after the launch of war ... jumping from just 250 feet". In the midst of this extraordinary lack of pre-battle security - or more likely we're seeing deliberate disinformation designed to intimidate and confuse Iraqis - US media have reported some new war-fighting jargon. One notable, currently fashionable, Pentagon buzz-phrase: "shock & awe". This the New York Times defines as an "air attack so devastating that it would leave the Iraqi army either unable or unwilling to fight, and hopefully shock it into surrendering". As part of this "rapid dominance" (also currently fashionable Pentagonese), more than 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles reportedly would hit Iraq within the war's first 48 hours. Harlan Ullman, of Washington's National Defence University, is the 'shock and awe' concept's architect. He explains that the initial assault would wipe out all the Iraqi army's divisional headquarters in the war's opening minutes, along with all of Baghdad's power and water. The Iraqis, says Ullman, would quickly become "physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted". Adds the strategist: "We want the Iraqis to quit, not to fight. Not taking days or weeks but minutes." Saddam and his aides are not noted for caring greatly about Iraqi civilian lives. Baghdad's embattled Žlite sees no difficulty in making the most of urban terrain - turning their capital into a Mesopotamian Stalingrad. The Iraqis hope that such a fortress, like its World War II model, will blunt an attack and, eventually, terminally discourage the attacker. What would be the nature of such defences? And how could the invaders deal with them? Some answers have come from "Iraqi Futures", an intensive seminar on any war's likely course conducted in London by the Institute for Strategic and International Studies, a leading think-tank. Seminar papers were released to IISS members early this month. Here are some combat realities presented in Dodge's paper, "Cake Walk, Coup or Urban Warfare: the Battle for Iraq: Iraq's 'coalition of guilt': Over 24 years of rule by murder, torture, and fear, Saddam has placed his tribe, the Albu-Nasir of his hometown, Tikrit, in powerful positions, especially within the much-feared secret police, the Special Security Organisation. Shared crimes against fellow Iraqis bind most adults of his community of just 30,000 Tikritis to Saddam, whom they call "Our Great Uncle". This 'class-clan' sits atop an economy managed largely in Tikriti interest - a 'coalition of guilt'. The SSO's most junior officer outranks the army's most senior generals. Perhaps 4,000 strong, this Iraqi Gestapo is responsible for ensuring the loyalty of all security and military personnel. Baghdad's defence rings: Analyst Dodge identifies three concentric defence rings around Saddam that, deliberately, don't depend on his possibly coup-prone regular army. (Most analysts pay little regard to the latter - a force of perhaps 275,000, but demoralised, and under-equipped.) The Republican Guard is 'the first ring of regime security' - about 50,000-70,000 men, equipped with tanks and heavy armour. In Dodge's view Saddam can't really trust them: "Although they share Saddam's general world-view - a hatred of the US and Israel - they have also developed an intense dislike of the president himself." According to Dodge, many officers blame Saddam for policies that have launched and lost wars, and isolated Iraq. Saddam's second defence ring is the Special Republican Guard, controlled by Saddam's younger son, Qusay. This "guard within a guard", says Dodge, "now make up the most efficient force - 26,000 men with officers whose loyalty to the regime is beyond doubt". Baghdad's heart of darkness: Finally, surrounding Saddam and his 50 or so closest aides are "a myriad of competing security organisations". The two most important groups are the SSO, and the Presidential Protection Unit (or Special Protection Apparatus). The SSO controls all weapons of mass destruction, and may well be under instructions to use them in Baghdad's defence. Invading troops will thus have to fight, says Dodge, a defensive cordon of as many as 30,000 or so. These defenders, says Dodge, will "have nowhere to go, as US troops and a vengeful population threaten them equally". The US commander now has at his disposal some 280,000 troops. Surely that would be more than a match for Saddam's 30,000-strong core. Such numbers make credible those reports of the invaders' responding arithmetic - a bomb or missile every minute for two shocking, awesome days. Pray for that Iraqi surrender to come long before any rout is necessary, 'not taking days or weeks but minutes'. Anthony Paul is a former war correspondent and an Australian member of London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.
BY ANTHONY PAUL, 19 March 2003 Khaleej Times,
http://66.234.3.46/Displayarticle.asp?xfile=data/editorial/2003/March/editorial_March75.xml§ion=
War on Iraq begins
US President George W Bush has said he has launched a war on Baghdad, vowing to "disarm Iraq and to free its people". Mr Bush delivered a live television address shortly after explosions rocked the Iraqi capital, signalling the start of the US-led campaign to topple Saddam Hussein. US military sources have told the BBC that five key members of the Iraqi regime, including Saddam Hussein, were targeted in the first attacks. The first strikes, which began at 0534 local time (0234 GMT) were of a limited nature in preparations for further, more extensive operations, US defence officials said. The president promised a "broad and concerted campaign" and said the US would prevail. Speaking from the Oval Office, President Bush said American and coalition forces were in the "early stages of military operations" and had struck "targets of military importance".
But, he warned, the campaign could be "longer and more difficult than some predict". As dawn broke in Baghdad, anti-aircraft artillery peppered the sky as deep, heavy thuds were heard in the outskirts of the city. The same target, in the east, is reported to have been hit three or four times. Republic of Iraq Radio in Baghdad said that "the evil ones, the enemies of God, the homeland and humanity, have committed the stupidity of aggression against our homeland and people".
'Limited thing' Reports quoting American military officials said planes had struck "targets of opportunity" which were thought to be occupied by elements of the Iraqi leadership.
US officials said Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter-bombers. French news agency AFP quoted a Pentagon official as saying the first strikes were "a limited thing - it ain't A-Day," referring to the planned massive air campaign. A BBC correspondent in Baghdad said anti-aircraft guns were in action for about 15 minutes, after which the city became quiet again. After the first strike, a large pall of black smoke was seen in the south of Baghdad.
At about the same time as the strikes began, the US military appeared to take over a frequency of Iraqi radio with an Arabic-speaking presenter announcing: "This is the day we have been waiting for." Our correspondent in Baghdad says the timing of the attack is unusual - coming as it did in daylight. He says traffic remains normal and people are beginning to appear on the streets. The attack began after President Bush's 0100GMT deadline for Saddam Hussein to go into exile or face war expired.
Deadline passes As the deadline approached, US-led combat troops in the Gulf - numbering about 150,000 - took up battle positions for an imminent invasion of Iraq.
As forces moved towards Iraq on Wednesday, 17 Iraqi soldiers surrendered to American troops on the Kuwaiti border. Hours before the deadline expired, US aircraft attacked Iraqi surface-to-surface missile and artillery installations in the western and southern Iraq, but the Pentagon insisted this was still in support of the no-fly zones and was not the start of the war proper. An air force colonel briefing reporters at the Pentagon said that the opening hours of the war would be devastating and that he did not believe the potential adversary had any idea what was coming. With battle looming the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said his thoughts were with the ordinary people of Iraq as they faced the "disaster of war". He warned the US and UK that "under international law, the responsibility for protecting civilians in conflict falls on the belligerents". The Turkish Government, meanwhile, has asked parliament to allow US planes to use its air space, with a vote expected on Thursday.
20 March 2003, Story from BBC NEWS:
Bush speech in full
US President George W Bush has made a televised address announcing the start of war against Iraq. This is the text of his speech: "My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. "On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. "These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. "More than 35 countries are giving crucial support, from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. "Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honour of serving in our common defence. "To all of the men and women of the United States armed forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. "That trust is well placed.
'Final atrocity' "The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honourable and decent spirit of the American military. "In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military; a final atrocity against his people. "I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment. "We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
Prayers for safety "I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. "Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. "For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people and you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done. "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. "We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities. "Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures and we will accept no outcome but victory. "My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others. "And we will prevail. "May God bless our country and all who defend her."
20 March 2003, Story from BBC NEWS: Iraq crisis hour-by-hour
BBC News Online charts developments in the Iraq crisis hour-by-hour as President Bush's deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face military action passes. [All times GMT and approximate.
Thursday 20 March 0401 The US issues a global alert, warning of potential terrorist attacks to American citizens abroad now the conflict has started. 0350 US defence officials say the air strikes so far have been of limited scope, and were designed to prepare the field for more intense operations. 0315 US President George W Bush addresses the American nation, saying that coalition forces have begun striking targets of military importance in Iraq. 0308 The main frequency of Iraqi state radio is reported to have been taken over by the US military. 0250 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer announces that war has commenced. "The opening stages of the disarmament of the Iraqi regime have begun," he says. 0245 Explosions are heard over Baghdad and anti-aircraft fire is seen in the sky. 0129 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer says: "The disarmament of the Iraqi regime will begin at a time of the president's choosing." 0110 Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev condemns US military moves, saying the United States was acting as if the world was its fiefdom. 0100 United States deadline for Saddam Hussein to go into exile or face war expires. 0020 US National Security Council meeting ends in Washington. A senior administration official later says President Bush decided when to launch a strike on Iraq during the meeting.
Saddam Hussein's address: text
The Iraqi leader's address was broadcast to the nation shortly after US forces launched a first attack on Baghdad. Iraqi state television said the address was live, but it has not yet been possible to verify this. [Saddam Hussein] In the name of God the merciful, the compassionate. To those against whom war is made, permission is given to fight because they are wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for their aid. [Koranic verse] O great people, O splendid men, the mujahideen of our heroic Armed Forces, O sons of our glorious Arab nation. With the dawn prayer today, 17 Muharram, 1424 of the Hegira, the reckless criminal, little Bush, and his henchmen carried out their crime with which they had been threatening Iraq and humanity.
Bush's criminal deed is supported by those who sided with him. Thus, he and his followers have perpetrated further crimes to be added to the series of their despicable crimes against Iraq and humanity. O Iraqis and zealous men in our nation. Our sacrifices are for you, for the principles of our glorious Arab nation, for the jihad banners and your creed and values - our souls, kinfolk, and children. We will not repeat the duties of the splendid men and women in terms of what they must do in defence of the dear homeland and the principles and sanctities. However, I say that every one of us in the family of Iraq - the family which is patient and faithful, and which is hated by its evil enemies - should remember all that they have said or pledged to do. These days, whose events will be ordained by God, will add to your immortal annals. O splendid men and women, this is what you deserve in terms of glory and victory and whatever elevates your position before God. These days will humiliate the infidels, the enemies of God and humanity.
You will triumph, O Iraqis, and with you the sons of your Arab nation will also triumph. Indeed, you are victorious and your enemies are in ignominy and shame, God willing. [Here Saddam Hussein begins to read a poem]
Unsheathe your sword, fearless and intrepid. Unsheathe your sword so that Saturn might witness it. Unsheathe your sword because the enemy has massed his forces. Only the sound-minded heroes will wipe them out. Prepare your horses and give them free reins because they bring hope. Let lightning brighten the dark skies until the true path is revealed and oppression is wiped out. Kindle up the fire in the darkness with torches, to make the blind and stammering see his path. Keep the fire on and make the ignominious and submissive fear it. Unsheathe your sword and let it shine; only the real man will win his rights. Raise your banners on every pole and pray to God to heal the wounds. [End poem]
O friends and those who resist evil in the world, peace be upon you. You have noticed how the reckless Bush disregarded your positions and views that you voiced against the war and disregarded your true calls for peace. He has perpetrated his macabre deed today.
We pledge to you in our name, the name of the leadership, and the name of the Iraqi people and Iraq's heroic army, in the Iraq of civilization, faith, and history, that we will resist the invaders. God willing, we will pursue them until they lose their nerves and until they lose hope in realizing what they had planned and so that they might reach the low level to which they were driven by criminal Zionism and those with vested interests. Now that they have indulged in their evil and crimes, they will suffer such a defeat that all the faithful people and those who love mankind and those who sincerely seek peace wished. Iraq will triumph and with Iraq will our Arab nation and mankind also triumph. The evil ones will be defeated because they will be unable to perpetrate crimes and commit murder, which the US-Zionist alliance have committed against nations and peoples, especially our glorious Arab nation. God is great. God is great. Long live Iraq and Palestine. God is great, God is great. Long live our glorious nation, human brotherhood, and those who love peace, security, and the right of people's to enjoy freedom and justice. God is great. May the lowly ones be accursed. Long live Iraq. Long live Iraq. Long live jihad and Palestine. BBC Monitoring , based in Caversham in southern England, selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages.
20 March
2003, Story from BBC NEWS:
US says 'coalition of willing' grows
President George W Bush said after a Cabinet meeting on Thursday that "over 40 nations now support our efforts. We are grateful for their determination, we appreciate their vision and we welcome their support". Earlier, the president's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said that the "coalition of the willing" was made up of countries of every race and faith, on every continent, with a population of 1.2bn and a GDP of $21 trillion. And Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it was larger than that assembled during the first Gulf War in 1991. Later on Thursday the White House released the latest list, which expanded on the list of 30 coalition members that the State Department had made public on Tuesday. But most of new additions are small countries with close ties to the US. And the White House said that the new list included countries which offered "political support", a broader category than the earlier list, which included countries offering "material assistance". The biggest addition to the list is Portugal, host of the Azores summit between the US, Britain and Spain last weekend.
Arab absence Remarkably, only one Arab state - Kuwait - is prepared to publicly associate itself with the US action or admit that it is providing bases or over-flight rights for US troops. The list is most extraordinary for the countries that are left off - which include nearly all of the Arab states, even those countries like Qatar and Bahrain, where US and British forces have been based ahead of the invasion. With feelings running high in the Arab world against invading Iraq, presumably these countries felt it wise not to be publicly identified with the US action. Nor is the main US ally in the Middle East, Israel, mentioned. And traditional US Arab allies, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, clearly did not want to associate themselves with military action against Saddam Hussein. The US government says that there are 10 other countries who do not want to be publicly identified who are helping US efforts.
Comparison to 1991 In contrast, the 1991 Gulf War coalition included 34 countries, many of whom provided substantial military assistance, and many of whom were from the Arab world. Twenty-one of those 34 countries do not support US efforts this time, including France, which sent 17,000 troops, and Syria, which sent 19,000 troops in 1991. This time, only Britain and Australia are offering substantial military assistance. The 1991 coalition total also does not include countries like Japan, which provided $4bn to fund the coalition efforts, and does not include many more countries which offered political support.
Range of support The current list includes countries which want no military role but would provide assistance with reconstruction efforts. In the latter category are Japan and South Korea, which are only prepared to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq. Many of the countries on the list are from Eastern Europe, where countries like Romania are providing basing rights, while Poland has offered 200 troops and the Czech Republic and Slovakia are sending chemical-biological warfare support units. Many of these are seeking US financial or military support through Nato. The US was surprisingly unsuccessful in gaining any allies in its traditional backyard of Latin America. Only five small central American and Caribbean nations, and Colombia - where the US is funding a huge anti-drugs war - were prepared to be identified with the US coalition. And it was hardly surprising that a number of tiny Pacific islands that had been US protectorates had offered symbolic support
Full list of coalition countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Additions: Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Kuwait, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Uganda.
By Steve Schifferes BBC News Online in Washington, Friday, 21 March 2003 Source: US State Department, White House, Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/2870487.stm
Coalition Forces Secure Oil Fields
A U.S. military convoy headed towards Baghdad passes oil pipelines burning near the southern Iraqi city of Basra. Coalition troops encountered little resistance as secured oil fields. (AP)"The United States and its international partners anticipated that Saddam Hussein's regime might attempt acts of sabotage against oil wells," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer American units advancing west of the southern city of Basra secured the Rumeila field, whose daily output of 1.3 million barrels makes it Iraq's most productive. Coalition forces also discovered that only seven oil wells were on fire in southern Iraq -- far fewer than many officials had feared, although smoke could be seen in photos taken by satellites. "All the key components of the southern oil fields are now safe," Adm. Michael Boyce, chief of the British defense staff, told reporters in London. "We have specialist civilian contractors on their way who will be in the area very shortly, in a day or two, to deal with the oil well fires." In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters that "only about 10 wells that we know of, out of possibly 1,000 in that area," had been damaged. Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said allied troops seized the port city of Umm Qasr in the al-Faw peninsula along with the main oil conduits along the al-Faw waterways. They also were sweeping through the southern Iraqi oil fields. In one of the first moves of the ground assault Thursday, U.S. and British troops captured the tip of the strategic al-Faw peninsula, a gathering point for the pipelines that carry crude from southern Iraq to the export terminals of Mina al-Bakr and Khor al-Amaya in the Persian Gulf.
British Defense
Secretary Geoff Hoon told the House of Commons that most of the al-Faw oil
facilities were intact. If the terminals in al-Faw — including facilities for
shipping, storing and loading crude — have been secured undamaged, "that's
more important than preventing the oil wells from being blown," said Leo
Drollas, chief economist of the Center for Global Energy Studies in London. Iraq
has the world's second-biggest proven crude reserves and typically pumps about
2.5 million barrels a day, or 3 percent of global supplies. More than half its
output comes from Rumeila and other fields near Basra. May contracts of North Sea Brent, Europe's benchmark price for crude, fell by $1.15 a barrel to $24.35 in London. Contracts of U.S. light, sweet crude for May delivery were $1.12 lower at $27.00, in New York. U.S. crude prices have dropped sharply since Feb. 27, when they reached a 12-year peak of $39.99. Witnesses near the city of Kirkuk, the center of the oil industry in northern Iraq, reported hearing explosions and anti-aircraft fire late Friday. The Kirkuk oil field produces about 700,000 barrels a day, most of which is exported via a pipeline to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, Turkey. With only seven wells out of a total 1,685 known lost to sabotage, the nightmare scenario of wholesale destruction of the Iraqi oil fields was becoming more remote, analysts said. "You lose 50 oil wells? Big deal," said Peter Gignoux, head of the oil desk at Salomon Smith Barney in London. "If the whole pipeline system and the loading facilities in the south are intact, then Iraq is half self-sufficient already." (osted on Sun, Mar. 30, 2003)
22 March,
2003
US unilateralism and unwanted war
On Thursday morning, the US invaded Iraq with initial strike at, what the Americans call, opportunity target with a Tomahawk cruise missile in an attempt to wipe out a large chunk of Iraqi leadership. In response, the Iraqis fired their aging scud missiles, which could do little or no damage. According to Pentagon sources the coalition forces conducted multiple strikes in Iraq. While American President Bush announced the start of the war, there are many who have argued that the war had already started some months back. Admittedly the coalition forces entered the Iraqi soil on Thursday morning but the air raids have been continuously conducted during the last few months though portraying them as part of the patrolling efforts over the "no fly zone". Not only the latest US-led war against Iraq has been disapproved by many nations but also it has been started without obtaining the approval of the UN Security Council (UNSC) despite the worldwide impressive public protests. The massive turn out of the people in many countries including the US and UK was unable to dissuade the coalition of the handful. The contemptuous neglect of the tens of millions of protesting voices is bound to have dangerous implications though it may take sometime to materialise. Following the passage of UNSC resolution 1441, the inspectors went into Iraq to identify and to secure the destruction of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Led by Chief Inspector Hans Blix and IAEA chief El Baradie the inspection process once again started and lasted for three to four months until UN Secretary General Kofi Annan pulled all the inspectors out of Iraq after intimation from the American officials. Mr Kofi Annan did not wait for UN Security Council's decision but ordered the inspectors out of Iraq and informed the Council of his action. One gets the feelings that Mr Annan was extremely concerned with the safety of UN personnel but seemed to have demonstrated utter disregard for the sufferings of the Iraqi people though he later lamented about it. Many nations recognised the need to disarm Iraq but they failed to see any convincing justification of the war-route to Iraqi disarmament. The chief inspectors have categorically stated that the inspection was yielding results though not at the pace that was deemed desirable. The most popular interpretation was that the inspectors should have been given more time enabling them to identify and destroy whatever they discover within the context of WMD. One cannot over look the fact that this time the cooperation of the Iraqi regime was little more forthcoming than was the case in the past. The Iraq war is the latest manifestation of American unilateralism. It is a well-known fact that after the demise of the Cold War, the resultant world order allowed the most powerful nation to undertake adventurism to suit its own ends. The first taste of American assertive pursuits was experienced in Afghanistan when the incumbent regime was forcefully removed and new one was installed. It needs to be mentioned here that circumstances surrounding the Afghanistan situation were indeed different from Iraq. In many ways the war against Afghanistan was justified by many in congruence with the sentiments that produced an international coalition against terrorism. Is the current war against Iraq justifiable? Two views exist. Some argue that the slow and reluctant response of Saddam provided justification for the war while the others regard it totally unjustifiable. The primary objective of the international community is to disarm Iraq. However, some members of the international community feel that without a regime change the main objective of disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction cannot be achieved. Therefore, it is imperative that the incumbent regime in Iraq is forcefully pushed out. But using force to remove any regime is not a good principle. This could mean that at any given time if a powerful country dislikes any particular regime, it can use the force and remove the regime. In the past, the most common method to remove a regime was to initiate something within the target country and secure the desired objective. The removal of Mossadiq regime in Iran or Allende regime in Chile is just two of the many examples that abounds the history of the world. The use of force in the manner it has now been used is something new. Two aspects deserve comments. First the removal of regimes used to take place, in the past, with the employment of covert methods and the use of external force was often termed as naked aggression. Second, the international body like UN was rarely used in pursuit of regime changes. This is perhaps one of the very few occasions when permission was somewhat indirectly sought from the world body to undertake such a venture though the stated objective was to disarm Iraq. However, the link between Iraqi disarmament and the regime-change was slowly becoming more and more pronounced. Undoubtedly aggression has been committed in the name of saving the world from the menace of a dictator who had acquired or was engaged in the acquisition of WMD. Indeed the danger that was projected was the likely use of WMD against other countries. Since the alleged possession of WMD by Iraq invoked apprehensions among many countries, the international community was willing to subject this issue to serious considerations. That is why one finds the world body like the UN getting interested in seeking the best possible way out without invading the country. If the peaceful pursuits had been given ample time, perhaps the war could have been averted. What makes many members of the international community somewhat furious is that the US and its allies did approach the UN with the objective of securing a green light to launch an invasion but when the realisation dawned upon them that they may not be able to get the necessary green light, they unilaterally abandoned the pursuit and embarked upon a unilateral action. This implies that the US and its partners had already made up their mind to invade Iraq irrespective of the fact whether or not the UN gives them the permission. This also means that the efforts to secure the UNSC mandate was only meant to gain a certain amount of respectability to the action they had already decided upon. Does this action make UN weak and irrelevant? Some argue that the American unilateralism has made the UN weak and somewhat irrelevant while others believe that the UN has received a major jolt but it would soon recover. However, many point out that the quick compliance by the UN secretary general to the US command with regard to the withdrawal of UN staff and international monitor generates the feelings that UN has been put in its place. Some writers have also argued that first casualty of the war has been the UN itself. The action of the American and the British has not only effectively impaired the working of the UN but has also irreparably harmed this world body. The dangerous precedent that has been established is indeed going to haunt all of us in future. Another dangerous consequence of the demonstrated American unilateralism is that it would take a rather heavy toll of the moves towards globalisation. Bypassing a multilateral organisation in order to promote unilateralism is indeed going to create many complexities for those eager to see the world rapidly moving towards globalisation. Unilateralism often carries hidden agenda whereas multilateralism invariably thrives on collective advantages. Perhaps that is why many critics of the current US policy are repeatedly highlighting American hidden agenda. According to the advocates of this interpretation the American hidden agenda includes the control over Iraq's vast oil reserves, installing a regime of their own choosing in many of the regional states, ensuring that Israel becomes the strongest regional power and getting the region rid of WMD except those in possession of their friends like the Israel etc. The over drummed issue of Iraqi disarmament appears to be no more than a smoke screen. The best way to rid Iraq of its WMD was through the continuation of inspection regime. After all no one is more qualified to identify and destroy the WMD than the UN backed inspection regime. The primary purpose of the UN is to maintain peace and security in the world. The only way it can function properly when its members demonstrate strict adherence to its Charter. Flouting the Charter would inevitably erode the sanctity of the entire UN system.
Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, 23 March, 2003, The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute picheema@ipri-pak.org, http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/index.html
Saddam promises Iraqi victory (extract)
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has issued a rallying call to the "brave and heroic" Iraqi people in an apparently live broadcast on national television.
The president, dressed in an olive green military uniform and reading from a script, promised that victory was near over US and British forces. His speech - only the second he has made since the outbreak of war - was delivered as Iraqi troops put up stubborn resistance against coalition troops in their advance on Baghdad.
Story from BBC NEWS: 24 March 2003 Coalition pushes for Baghdad
Coalition forces in Iraq have started their push to strike at the heart of Saddam Hussein's regime by attacking Iraqi troops near the city of Baghdad. Following five days of strategic bombing raids on the Iraqi capital, US helicopter gunships and war planes have attacked Republican Guard positions outside the city overnight. US commander General Tommy Franks has described the progress of the coalition forces as rapid and dramatic, adding that there had been some "terrific fire fights". Several American television networks are carrying reports that the Republican Guard troops around Baghdad could be authorised to use chemical weapons if other means of defending the city were failing. These intelligence reports speak of a line drawn on a map of the city; if the invading forces were to cross it, Saddam Hussein has reportedly given permission for a chemical attack. US Secretary of State Colin Powell has also suggested the Iraqi leader could allow a chemical strike against Shiite Muslims in the south of the country which would then be blamed on US-led forces. General Franks said coalition lead formations were now less than 100 kilometres (60 miles) from Baghdad. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has said encounters between the coalition forces and the Medina division of the Republican Guard, defending the route to the capital, would "be a crucial moment".
Prisoners But initial strikes in the area have already led to the loss of a US Apache helicopter, brought down in Karbala south of Baghdad, and two US pilots have been shown on Iraqi TV. Iraqis say a farmer shot down the Apache helicopter on Monday. Iraqi television showed pictures of two men described as the pilots, prompting condemnation from the US for violating regulations on war. The Iraqi Government said the men would be treated as Prisoners of War under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Pentagon officials named the missing crew as Chief Warrant Officer Ronald Young, 26, and Chief Warrant Officer David Williams, 30.
Southern Iraq has been described as "broadly under the control of coalition forces". But pockets of resistance continue to hold up the coalition's advance. US-led troops have been involved in some of the fiercest fighting of the war so far - running into stiff resistance particularly in the southern town of Nasiriyah, where 10 Americans have been killed in the fighting. UK forces suffered their first combat loss with the death of a soldier who was reported to have been shot during civilian rioting on Sunday near al-Zubayr, to the south of Basra. He died of his injuries on Monday. British forces have been trying to overcome concerted Iraqi opposition in Basra. British military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Ronnie McCourt said: "This is not a video game where everything is clear and neat and tidy. Some enemy who feel that they want to carry on fighting will inevitably do so." The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has called for urgent measures to help the local population which face the threat of disease from a lack of clean water. Bombardments of Iraqi positions have continued on the northern front between Kirkuk and the Kurdish-controlled town of Chamchamal. The city of Mosul has also been targeted by coalition bombers. And US, UK and Australian special forces soldiers were active in the west of Iraq. Other key developments UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is to meet US President George Bush later this week to discuss the war, say US government officials Arab League countries have condemned the "aggression" against Iraq and called for the immediate withdrawal of US and British forces from the country US President George W Bush has complained directly to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, that Russian companies have been selling military equipment to Iraq in breach of UN sanctions President Bush is preparing to ask Congress for nearly $75bn to meet the cost of the war. Iraqi television has broadcast a rallying call from President Saddam Hussein to his nation's "brave and heroic" people. There have been rumours about the Iraqi leader ever since he was targeted on the first day of the US-led campaign. Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said later that the regime's leadership was "in good shape" and Saddam Hussein was "in full control of the army and the country".
Story from BBC NEWS: 25 March 2003
Has the Coalition's "effects-based strategy " worked?Did United States officials, over-estimate the speed with which they could depose Saddam Hussein's regime? A defensive Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, has denied that that was so, but many commentators believe they did. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, for instance, had told reporters before the war began that "shock and awe" bombing would "shock and awe" the regime into rapid collapse. Well, the regime may have been shocked, and not a little awed, but it hasn't collapsed. US military commanders now acknowledge that though the bombing has undoubtedly been effective, it has not destroyed the regime's ability to direct its forces. Indeed, coalition forces have met with fiercer than expected resistance in the south, in and around Basra and Umm Qasr, as well as in the west, in Nasiriyah and Najaf, the latter within 80 miles of Baghdad. About 10 US soldiers died in just one fierce fire-fight near Nasiriyah on Sunday, and about an estimated 300 Iraqis perished in a fight outside Najaf on Tuesday. At the very least, this shows that Iraqi soldiers, whether out of loyalty to Saddam Hussein or for nationalistic reasons or sheer fright, are willing to fight. And all this is happening before the real fight begins - the Battle for Baghdad - when coalition troops would be engaging with the elite Republican Guard. The early assumption that Iraqi armies would just melt away or defect has not been borne out by events. Without a doubt, coalition forces have made progress. In just five days, they advanced more than 200 miles into Iraq. Some elements are now less than 50 miles from Baghdad. Nor is there any doubt what the final outcome will be. The US military has the might, the power, the skill to crush Saddam's forces - ultimately. The question is how long it would take, at what cost - to both coalition forces and Iraqi civilians -- and what is the best strategy to achieve US ends. The war thus far has been fought according to a new doctrine called the "effects-based'' strategy. The theory was that highly precise munitions would enable the US airforce to swiftly cripple the enemy's command and control networks, shattering its ability to fight as a coherent force. In the ensuing confusion, ground units would be able to move rapidly to defeat the enemy before they had a chance to recover. Mr Rumsfeld was one of the chief proponents of this doctrine. Army and Marine commanders, especially, were skeptical. It was their forces which would suffer the most if they moved forward rapidly, only to discover air strikes had not disrupted the enemy's ability to fight. The past few days suggest the sceptics may have had a point. By rushing towards Baghdad, bypassing urban centres and enemy formations en route, US forces seem to have left their flanks and rears exposed. Thousands of so-called "fedayeen'' fighters in the south, for example, have inflicted significant casualties on coalition forces in guerrila-style attacks. Such attacks along a supply line that stretches more than 250 miles - the longest, evidently, that US Marines have faced in 200 years - can bog down coalition forces and interrupt their progress towards Baghdad. As a result, there may be a change in US plans, according to Michael Gordon, the New York Times chief military correspondent. The attack on Baghdad may be delayed, while coalition forces focus of clearing up their rear, mopping up resistance in cities like Basra and towns like Nasiriyah. The delay will not change the outcome of the war - that is not in doubt, whatever happens - but it may reduce casualties. Also, the delay would suit the US Army and Marines, for a number of divisions slated to arrive in the theatre have yet to do so. Mr Rumsfeld had also pushed the theory that new high-tech weaponry would allow the US to prosecute the war with smaller forces - and that theory is likely to be abandoned too. War has a habit of doing that to the best-laid plans.
by Janadas Devan, 26 March 2003 http://rsi.com.sg/en/programmes/call_from_america/2003/03/26_03_01.htm Will Europe be the same after Iraq war?
This war won't leave the world as it found it. And this is true not only for the Muslim world but for Europe and America too. The irritations that seem a constant of American-European relations during the last few years have become almost a battle zone. If the academic studies were not so convincing on the subject that democracies never go to war with each other one could perhaps imagine in the foreseeable future a state of armed hostilities between the rival camps. Certainly the common mood all over Western Europe is that we don't want to be part of the great transatlantic alliance anymore, if it means that every couple of years we have to follow America to war. In the crucible of the preparations for war European citizens have forged their own common foreign policy. Europeans have never been so aware of their common identity nor so conscious of what separates them from their old kissing cousins across the Atlantic - an abhorrence of war, the gun culture, brutal prison regimes, and capital punishment. Add to that the two codes of justice, one for the well-to-do and one for the poor. Ditto for the health services. Ditto for education. All this has taken a long time to come to the surface. But the roots are deep. They go right back to the Iron and Steel Community, the precursor of the European Union, when France and Germany decided they must never go to war again and that the way to avoid it was to bind themselves economically together. The debate over Iraq has crystallised this mood of Euro-solidarity, which if it had been left to mature on its own without outside stimulus might have taken a few more decades to solidify. And if the war goes wrong, triggering off great instability in the Middle East and adding new muscle to the depredations of Al Qaeda the fault lines will deepen even further, and even more so if the U.S., confronting a chemical or biological attack, decides, as it has said it would, to use its nuclear weapons. Indeed, resentment of American prowess now runs so deep that one can well imagine that a terrorist attack on Europe will unleash more anti-American feeling than anti-Arab. Not for nothing are polls showing all over Europe that the United States is regarded as the real rogue of our times. Washington is sitting too comfortable with these developments. From the eye of the White House it looks as if "old" Europe is nicely divided with Britain and Spain on its side and out there is "new" Europe to the east more pro American than ever. But this is to assume the most optimistic scenario imaginable - that the war will go so smoothly that the kaleidoscope of Europe won't be re-shaken. The chances are the war will cause great upheavals and one senses that this is part of the fine calculations being made in the Kremlin by Vladimir Putin. It is only last year that observers were admiring the geo-political athleticism of President George Bush as he appeared to leap over Europe's head and embrace Putin. Europe seemed marginalised and a Russo-American condominium all too capable of calling the biggest shots. But it has not turned out this way. Contrary to expectations and in the face of last minute blandishments by Washington to set in motion a number of matters that favour Russia, Putin has turned towards the Franco-German axis, where many influential Russians from Mikhail Gorbachev on, with his talk of building "a common European house", have always felt Russia's interests lay. What this means for the East Europeans who have rallied to Washington's cause is becoming clearer by the day. They may resent President Jacques Chirac's threat to stall their membership of the European Union, but it is a serious threat and neither Washington, London nor Madrid can help them out of this hole they have dug for themselves. They have made a serious tactical mistake and one that could have deeper ramifications if prime ministers Jose Maria Aznar and Tony Blair lose their crowns in the days ahead. Although public opinion in Spain is even more anti-war than it is in Britain it is Tony Blair who is the more vulnerable of the two. If the war goes wrong he will lose his premiership, whilst Aznar will just slide away as planned at the next election. In both countries whoever takes over will be far less pro-American and also more amenable to a common identity in European foreign policy. (And one that includes Russia more often than not.) The process of creating a powerful single unified voice of Europe capable of speaking with great authority to the outside world, now in obeyance because of the current splits, will take a great leap forward. One can expect to see European encouragement to the American urge to wind down many of their bases in Western Europe, but also forestalling the simplistic American desire to move their bases into Eastern Europe. The question is will Americans of influence, rather than ribbing Europe with accusations of playing Venus to America's Mars, realize that Europe is tough and strong enough to have its own valid point of view and it has come to these opinions out of strength not of weakness, out of perception, not ignorance?
by Jonathan Power, Dawn 26 March 2003, http://www.dawn.com/2003/text/op.htm#5
Iraq fighting shows bloody reality of war: German press
BERLIN: Pictures of dead and captured soldiers. Civilians killed in bombings. Street-by-street skirmishes. Troops killed by accident. This is the bitter reality of war in Iraq, Germany's press lamented Tuesday. It did not mean the US-led campaign was going badly, newspapers said -- it was just that expectations of a swift and clean end to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime were overblown. "A few days after the start of the invasion, it is suddenly clear what war means," the centre-left Tagesspiegel commented. "Forgotten are the abstract, soundbite terms like precision weapons, shock and awe, liberation, a new Middle East order. "In their stead we see innocent victims, 'friendly fire' tragedy, prisoners of war, dead and wounded, children crying, desperate refugees." The Sueddeutsche Zeitung warned that it would get worse: there was no such thing as a "clean war" except in propaganda terms. "The images of the dead and captured (US troops) do not necessarily mean the war is going badly militarily," it said. "They signal something else: this is war as it really is, not as a computer game of surgical strikes, but an abyss, a human drama of blood and fear, pain and tears." The conservative Die Welt warned against expecting Saddam's "dying regime" simply to melt away, drawing a comparison to the bitter fighting of the final year of World War II. Then, German soldiers still put up fierce resistance even though they must have realised that Hitler's dictatorship was doomed. "The hard core of (Iraq's) ruling apparatus is, like all determined terror regimes, filled with nihilists and criminals," it said. "A strategy of causing as few casualties as possible meets its limits here. This war is real. The allies will win. But it won't be a walk in the park." A similar view came from Financial Times Deutschland. "Like all wars this, too, is a dirty war," it wrote, saying ordinary Iraqis would not greet the US troops as liberators. "The moment of victory is not clear, but the outcome is," the paper added, while warning that it "will not come this weekend." "It is easier to destroy a country totally than to defeat a mot vated army in street fighting."
The News, March 26, 2003, http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/
‘Iraqi command facilities being destroyed’:
US general AS SAYLIYAH MILITARY BASE (Doha) - Iraq's Command and Control facilities are being further destroyed, it was learnt during a briefing by US Brigadier-General Vince Brooks at US Central Command (US Centcom) yesterday afternoon. However, details were not yet available of a probable blue-on-blue 'friendly fire' incident involving US Marines near Nasiriyah. "Without wishing to be disrespectful to you, why should we stay here for these briefings?" asked one journalist to great applause from his colleagues, adding that the briefings were not being addressed by the top brass, were frequently filled with old information and that more details were coming out of the Pentagon than from Centcom. Gen. Brooks did, however, gave the number of 'Free Iraqi Forces' now working with the coalition. "We have roughly 40 working with our Civil Affairs Units, usually 4 or 5 in a squad, and we're trying to get them back into their original homes and villages where people trust them," he added. Wearing distinctive 'FIF' badges, they have been trained by the coalition in Hungary and are being used "to prepare the Iraqis for liberation", Gen. Brooks said. He described them as part of the coalition's "unconventional warfare".
From Gina Coleman (Our Doha correspondent), 28 March 2003, Khaleej Times,
http://66.234.3.46/Displayarticle.asp?section=middleeast&xfile=data/middleeast/2003/march
The militarisation of aid, (Editorial:)
ONE OF the pillars of this badly planned US-British campaign against Iraq is obviously the militarisation of humanitarian aid. War planners must attach great importance to the fact that aid be delivered by US and British soldiers, if they are willing to openly come to loggerheads with all international relief organisations on this issue. Well, like most other “plans” of this so-called “coalition” waging war against Iraq, the Pentagon's attempts to militarise humanitarian operations are not going to work. The first point to be made is that Iraq is a country being invaded. Both words “country” and “invaded” are to be stressed here. The state of Iraq hinges on a well-organised, though too centralised, capillary network of local authorities. Since 1996, the Iraqi government has put in place an efficient system strong of 45,000 distribution points, from the largest towns to the tiniest villages, to deliver aid purchased under the oil-for-food programme. No foreign army will ever equal that. That Iraqis might be more inclined to tolerate the presence of US-British forces on their land once these forces provide them with food, water and medicine, is another illusion. Iraqis know well that, if it weren't for those very US-British forces, they wouldn't be in need and wouldn't find themselves in want of food, water and medicine, in the first place. Some media have been talking about Washington's war to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. That war, Washington lost the minute it launched its first bomb on Baghdad. War planners might view their stubborn policy to sideline international humanitarian organisations and hand over control of the relief campaign to the military as necessary propaganda. But in fact, it is a crime. As if military hardware were not having enough of a devastating effect on innocent Iraqi civilians, the US is now resorting to a more sophisticated — and, if possible, more lethal — weapon: Blackmailing people into accepting food from the hands of invading soldiers, or starving to death.
Monday, March 31, 2003, The Jordan Times http://www.jordantimes.com/Mon/opinion/opinion1.htm
The Arab stand in 1956 in comparison to this year
The problem of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) pitted Iraq against the UN (read Iraq against the US) for 12 years, during which, at no time did WMD become a problem between the Arabs and the UN (or the Arabs and the US). The repeatedly avowed Arab position has been, to the very contrary, that Iraq must uphold international resolutions, a phrase that first and foremost means the removal of WMD in keeping with the relevant UN resolutions. In other words, the problem is one of Iraq versus the UN. Even when the US began to use the term “regime change in Iraq” as a synonym or alternative phrase to “removal of WMD,” the Arabs didn’t pay much attention in general, and continued to deal with the problem as one that pitted Iraq against the US or against the world body. That situation persisted until the beginning of last October, when the US resorted to the UN for the issuing of a resolution authorizing it to lead a military alliance to remove Iraq’s WMD through armed force. The move was the first turning point that signaled a transformation of the issue of Iraqi WMD into an Arab-American or even Arab-UN problem. The official Arab position, like that of most states around the globe, crystallized around a rejection of the proposed US method, although it remained in agreement with the US aim of removing Iraq’s doomsday weapons. When the US and Britain launched their war on Iraq the US-Iraqi conflict turned into an Arab-US conflict, in which the vast majority of Arab peoples support Iraq as an Arab state under attack, rather than an aggressive country as it was in 1990-1991. Hence, it was America that transformed a bilateral conflict between it and one Arab state into a US-Arab conflict that is, a conflict between the Arabs as a nation and the US, allied to Britain and Spain. This is reminiscent of the 1956 tripartite aggression on Egypt, when the conflict arising from Egypt’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal was transformed from a legal dispute between one Arab state and two Western countries into a conflict between the Arabs as a nation and a British-French-Israeli alliance. Despite the many similarities between the present war on Iraq and the 1956 tripartite aggression on Egypt, there are several differences. The first is that the 1956 tripartite aggression took place during the Cold War era, when the world was divided between two rival camps, allowing events to develop to Egypt’s advantage. But the current aggression occurs as the US tries to establish itself as the leader of the world in the absence of a counterbalancing military force that rejects its aggression. The power confronting it is not a superpower, such as the former Soviet Union, but a legal power that expressed itself through protest demonstrations in most countries and through the stand taken by most members of the UN Security Council. The US paid no heed to either power, and went ahead with its plan. The second difference is that the support of Arab peoples for Egypt in 1956 was prompted by a desire to preserve an Arab victory that had already been achieved, rather than by the need for an absent victory. The 1956 tripartite aggression against Egypt was in response to Egypt’s nationalization of the Suez Canal, which at the time was considered by Egypt and the Arab world as a nationalist, pan-Arab achievement against foreign colonialism. Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel-Nasser emerged from the conflict as an undisputed pan-Arab hero, giving a huge boost to the pan-Arab movement that was only stopped by the defeat of 1967. The 2003 aggression occurs at a time when the Arabs have long complained of accumulated frustrations and pent up anger. The Arab peoples feel the powerlessness of their regimes to protect the Arab nation’s dignity, which has been humiliated by political setbacks; the failure of national economic development programs; an increase in poverty and unemployment; and the fragmentation of the Arab position vis-a-vis pan-Arab issues, particularly the Palestinian cause as the Palestinians suffer more than two years of Israeli brutality while the Arabs appear to lack the will to do anything to save the Palestinian people or regain their occupied land. The third dissimilarity is that the Arab governments supported Egypt as it fought against the 1956 tripartite aggression. But in 2003, the Arab governments appear hesitant and frightened. This has made them less mindful of allowing their duplicity to be exposed to their peoples and the countries of the world, when, on the one hand, they sign regional or international declarations opposing aggression against Iraq, while on the other hand, they behave in line with their bilateral relations with the US, aiding it in its war on Iraq.This gives rise to fears that the 2003 conflict will create renewed frustration amongst the Arab peoples, and the resulting anger could be directed against the entire Arab order, in contrast to the results of the 1956 aggression that gave a boost to Abdel-Nasser and uplifted the pan-Arab movement.
Adnan Abu Odeh, a former Jordanian ambassador, information minister and chief of the Royal Court, is a regular contributor to THE DAILY STAR http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/31_03_03_c.asp Franks: Military operation 'on plan'
Sunday, March
30, 2003 Posted: 1836 GMT ( 2:36 AM HKT) "Where we stand today is not only acceptable in my view, it is truly remarkable," said Gen. Tommy Franks, appearing before reporters at a U.S. Central Command briefing. Franks also questioned Iraq's leadership capabilities. "I have not seen evidence" in past days "that this regime is being controlled from the top," Franks said. He said he does not know whether Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is "dead or alive." The "growing coalition of nearly 50 nations" is one day closer to liberating Iraq and removing its terrorist regime, Franks said. Franks said large ground forces are within 60 miles of Baghdad and they maintain a "readiness level of their combat levels above 90 percent mission capable." A "massive terrorist facility" has been destroyed in northern Iraq, Franks said. The facility is "huge" and "exploitation" of the facility "is in its very early stages. ... We have forces there now," he said. He gave no further details. But Washington has accused Ansar al-Islam, a militant Kurdish group in northern Iraq, of operating a camp in the region. U.S. officials have said for months that this camp is the "nexus" between the Baghdad regime and known terror groups, including al Qaeda. But other intelligence agencies say they don't see a link, and that the camp is located deep within territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein. Other key issues raised: · Franks rejected reports that there is a pause in the movement of troops toward Baghdad. "We are not interested in fits and starts," he said. "We are interested in a steady flow" of forces "until I tell my boss, 'That's enough.'" · Iraqi irregulars are not blocking flows of supplies to coalition forces in Iraq, but they are attempting to do so even as they terrorize Iraqi civilians, Franks said. These "death squads, bands of thugs, terrorists, paramilitaries" have occupied centers of cities, villages and towns from Umm Qasr, in the south, to areas about 250 miles north of there, he said. · Coalition forces secured the oil fields in the south from regime destruction, Franks said. "This vital resource has been preserved for Iraq's future," he said. · Coalition forces have "air and ground freedom of action" in western Iraq to protect Iraq's neighbors from "potential regime use of weapons of mass destruction," Franks said. · Coalition air forces work 24 hours a day across "every square foot of Iraq," Franks said. "Every day the regime loses more of its military capability." Air operations are now being staged from numerous Iraqi air fields, "which are now under coalition control," he said. · Franks told reporters the coalition now had a "very capable ground force" in northern Iraq. The forces, along with special operations troops, have prevented feuding between the Turks and the Kurds. Franks said those coalition troops "represented a serious northern threat to regime forces."
1 April 2003 http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/30/sprj.irq. franks/
Arab News SAUDI ARABIA'S FIRST ENGLISH LANGUAGE DAILY
The Americans and British are apparently aggrieved that Iraqis are not fighting according to traditional rules of engagement. They are furious that groups like the Saddam Fedayeen have been firing from hospitals and schools, have been using civilians as shields and have adopted the tactic of pretending to surrender and waving white flags and then firing on their foes as they advance. But these are traditional tactics — they are the traditional tactics of a guerrilla war. What can the Iraqis do other than fight a guerrilla campaign? If they send out their tanks against the Americans and British, they will be obliterated — as happened last week when Iraqi tanks tried to break out of Basra and head for the Al Faw Peninsula. In a war like this — a war which for ordinary Iraqis is one of national survival — all methods are fair. If guerrilla tactics are the only serious option available to them, it is folly to imagine that they are not going to use them. If American and British strategists genuinely imagined that they would play the war according to Westpoint and Sandhurst rules, it is another miscalculation to add to the list. There is, however, more to the unfolding guerrilla campaign than military tactics. There is a political strategy as well; Saddam Hussein and his generals have evidently been reading their military history books. The use of civilians as shields, the pretense at surrender, are ploys that the Vietnamese used to great effect in their war with the US. The Iraqi military wants the Americans to lose their nerve and start firing on Iraqi civilians, thinking they are soldiers in disguise, and on Iraqi troops who are genuinely surrendering. Caught on camera, the consequences would be devastating. It would strengthen the struggle against the invaders and blur the line between civilian and military resistance: Iraqi solders would think twice about surrendering and be more likely to continue fighting while civilian resolve to resist the invaders would likewise be stiffened; and back in the US and the UK, images of civilians and surrendering troops being shot would massively increase public demands for an end to the war. The Iraqis know that they have one great military advantage which they will exploit to the extreme: their opponents’ need to avoid civilian casualties. It spells a protracted urban guerrilla conflict, something quite new in the annals of warfare. But just because Saddam Hussein has opted to use tactics gleaned from the Vietnam war does not mean that this is going to be another Vietnam. The rush to predict as much in the past few days, with the US bogged down for years in an unwinnable war is a folly too far — and the international media is just as much to blame as anyone else. It is sheer emotion and sensationalism, and neither provide a worthwhile basis for conjecture. It is far too early to say where this war is going. It is not even two weeks old yet. In any event, the Americans too have learned lessons from Vietnam and they are not going to fall into Saddam Hussein’s traps quite so easily. There is no point conjecturing where this war is or is not going, no point making sensational assessments as to its outcome. We do not need to say anything more than the present visible truth — that this is a rotten war that the people of Iraq do not want. They have made it abundantly clear do not want to be liberated by the Americans and British. Not that that is going to make any difference in Washington or London. The wishes of the Iraqi appear to be the last thing on Bush’s and Blair’s agenda.
All’s Fair in War, Arab News Editorial 1 April 2003, Published on Tuesday, April 01, 2003 http://www.arabnews.com/print.asp?id=24576&ArY=2003&ArM=4&ArD=2
British troops face 'strongest resistance' in Abu Al Qassib AS SAYLIYAH MILITARY BASE (Doha) - British forces said they met with the strongest resistance yet in Iraq as they battled to take control of the small southern town of Abu Al Qassib. The operation now takes them to just outside Basra. "The highly successful Operation James ended on Sunday night," said Group Captain Al Lockwood. He was speaking at As Sayliyah base in Qatar yesterday. "It was carried out by troops of the 3 Commando Brigade; a large number of enemy tanks were destroyed and we seized a large number of equipment, as well as some 30 PoWs." "There were a large number of casualties on the enemy side and one British soldier was killed in action. Our thoughts are with him, his family and friends at this time." British forces have been raiding Basra for some days, attempting to flush out Iraqi paramilitary forces who are reported to be terrorising the local population. Gr. Capt. Lockwood said the coalition was gaining the trust of civilians in Basra, who were leaving the city and talking to British forces. They started "providing us with valuable information of where these paramilitary forces are in the city and how they are operating." He described the raids as part of the coalition's 'arsenal of tactics', saying: "We will use whatever we need to in order to liberate Basra, but in our minds are the 1.3 million civilians who live there and we have to take them and their safety into account during any operation; so it's a careful operation and we will take as much time as is required to minimise casualties on both sides." Several humanitarian aid points have been set up around the city, and according to Gr. Capt. Lockwood, "our forces control the bridge and we allow civilians to cross it. Some collect aid and return to the city, others go elsewhere." But in view of the continued resistance and in light of the suicide attack in Najaf, they are treating all civilians with caution. Though reports continued to trickle in about troops being low on ammunition, fuel and food, General Tommy Franks denied there was supply problem, that there was any pause in the attack or any rift between him and US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the number of troops or the overall plan for the operation. On Sunday he described the coalition as being 'on plan'. He said: "Where we stand today is not only acceptable, but in my view it is remarkable. This will be, as I've said, a campaign like no other before." When asked about whether the war could drag on, he said: "One never knows how long a war will take. But what we do know is this coalition sees the regime gone at the end of that war."
From Gina Coleman (Our Qatar correspondent), 1 April 2003, Khaleej Times,
http://66.234.3.46/Displayarticle.asp?section=middleeast&xfile=data/middleeast/2003/april/
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
List of Military and Civilians who were killed or died in US led coalition war against Iraq: |
||||||
|
|
Americans |
British |
Iraqis |
Others |
||
|
Total as of: |
Killed |
126 |
31 |
5000 |
|
|
|
Missing |
4 |
0 |
- |
|
||
|
POWs |
0 |
0 |
11,000 |
|
||
|
Civilian Casualties |
0 |
0 |
1400 |
|
||
|
Journalists or else |
|
|
|
18 |
||
|
|
|||||
|
3/19/03 First US bomb strike hit Baghdad |
|
|
3 top officials |
|
||
| 3/21/03 Helicopter crash in Kuwait |
4 |
8 |
|
|
||
|
3/21/03 in combat south Iraq |
2 |
|
|
|
||
|
3/22/03 Persian Gulf Helicopter collision |
1 |
6 |
|
|
||
| 3/22/03 Grenade attack in US camp in Kuwait |
2 |
0 |
|
|
||
|
3/23/03 Al Naseriyeh combat |
9 |
|
70 |
|
||
|
3/23/03 attacks to 3 British & Aussi journalists |
|
|
|
3 |
||
|
3/23/03 Plane crash / US friendly fire in Kuwait |
|
2 |
|
|
||
| 3/24/03 Najaf Battle, sniper shot |
1 |
|
150-500 |
|
||
|
3/24/03 Riot in Basra |
|
2 |
|
|
||
|
3/24/03 Drowned in Saddam Canal |
2 |
|
|
|
||
|
3/25/03 Friendly fire from tank near Basra |
|
2 |
|
|
||
|
3/25/02 a missile struck market in Baghdad |
|
|
36 civilians |
|
||
|
3/26/02 POWs or missing in action |
|
2 |
|
|
||
|
3/26/02 vehicle accident in South Iraq |
1 |
|
|
|
||
|
3/28/02 a missile struck another market in Baghdad |
|
|
58 civilians |
|
||
|
3/28/02 Baath Party in Baghdad attacked |
|
|
8 civilians |
|
||
|
3/29/03 A suicide attack in a taxi near Najaf |
4 |
|
1 |
|
||
|
3/29/03 air bombing campaign throughout Iraq |
|
|
74 |
|
||
|
3/29/03 Baghdad air bombing |
|
|
68 Civilians |
|
||
|
3/30/03 Helicopter crash south Baghdad |
3 |
|
|
|
||
|
3/30/03 Code "James Bond" operation, Basra |
1 |
|
7 |
|
||
|
3/30/03 A farm hit outskirt south of Baghdad |
|
|
20 Civilians |
|
||
|
3/31/03 Hindyah combat 80KM south of Baghdad |
|
|
38 |
|
||
|
3/03/31 US marines hit a van near Najaf |
|
|
15 Civilians |
|
||
|
3/31/03 start of Najaf street fight |
1 |
|
100 |
|
||
|
3/31/03 fight for key bridge in Nasiriyah |
|
|
50 |
|
||
|
4/01/03 US Bombing in Hilla |
|
|
48 Civilians |
|
||
|
4/02/03 Najaf battle |
1 |
|
22,200POW |
|
||
|
4/02/03 Mousol bombing |
|
|
35 Civilians |
|
||
|
4/02/03 Basra bombing |
|
|
27 Civilians |
|
||
|
4/02/03 Baghdad army resistance |
|
|
400 |
|
||
|
4/02/03 Hilla cluster bombing |
|
|
30 civilians |
|
||
|
4/03/03 around Baghdad airport |
|
|
12 Civilians |
|
||
|
4/03/03 Baghdad cluster bombing |
|
|
16 Civilians |
|
||
|
4/03/03 US helicopter crash at Karbala |
7 |
|
|
|
||
|
4/03/03 US F/A-18 plane shut down |
1 |
|
|
|
||
|
4/03/03 Iranian journalist killed by land mine |
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
4/03/03 Iraqi woman car suicide attack |
3 |
|
2 |
|
||
|
4/04/03 American journalist killed at Al Kut area |
1 |
|
|
1 |
||
|
4/04/03 Baghdad airport battle |
100 |
|
300 |
|
||
|
4/05/03 US super cobra crashed Central Iraq |
2 |
|
|
|
||
|
4/05/03 Friendly fire |
3 |
|
|
|
||
|
4/05/03 3 more journalists died |
|
|
|
3 |
||
|
4/05/03 Basra bombing and city outskirt |
|
1 |
17 Civilians |
|
||
|
4/05/03 A young boy riding a bicycle shot by American troops in Karbala |
|
|
1 civilian |
|
||
|
4/05/03 Al Emareh bombing |
|
|
50 civilians |
|
||
|
4/05/03 US drives into Baghdad |
50 |
|
1000 |
|
||
|
4/05/05 A 13 year Iranian boy hit by a US bomb dropped by mistake near Abadan, Iran |
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
4/06/03 Al Zubair battle |
|
20 |
80 |
|
||
|
4/06/03 Karbala street fighting |
|
|
75 |
|
||
|
4/06/03 Northern Iraq fighting |
4 |
|
|
|
||
|
4/06/03 Us bombing Kurdish convoy at North |
|
1translator |
17 Kurds |
|
||
|
4/06/03 US journalist dies of natural cause |
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
4/07/03 Basra bombing |
|
|
200 civilians |
|
||
|
4/07/03 Baghdad bombing |
|
|
14 civilians |
|
||
|
4/07/03 2 European Journalist in S. Baghdad |
2 |
|
|
2 |
||
|
7/07/03 US airplane shot down by air missile |
2 missing |
|
|
|
||
|
4/08/03 US bombed Mansur neighborhood in Baghdad |
|
|
14 civilians |
|
||
|
4/08/03 Saddam Hussein, his sons & top officials were assumed to be killed in Mansur restaurant bombing in Baghdad |
|
|
8 |
|
||
|
4/08/03 US tank targeted Arab media in Baghdad, killing Aljazira TV cameraman |
|
|
|
1 |
||
|
4/08/03 US tank shooting at Palestine hotel in Baghdad, killing 2 journalists |
|
|
|
2 |
||
|
4/09/03 Baghdad falls down |
|
|
|
|
||
|
4/10/03 fighting continues in Baghdad |
1 |
|
6 civilians |
|
||
|
4/10/03 car suicide bombing in Baghdad |
1 |
|
1 |
|
||
|
4/10/03 2 Shiai leaders killed in Imam Ali shrine in Najaf by another Shiai group |
|
|
6 |
|
||
|
4/11/02 US wary of suicide attack in Baghdad |
|
|
4 civilians |
|
||
|
4/11/03 Saddam half brother in US air raid |
|
|
1+ |
|
||
|
4/12/03 Fighting in Baghdad around Tigris river |
1 |
|
15-20 |
|
||
|
4/12/03 Fighting in center of Musol |
|
|
20 |
|
||
|
4/12/03 US Marine shot to death at a Baghdad checkpoint near hospital |
1 |
|
|
1Syrian |
||
|
4/13/03 Kirkuk fighting between kurds & Iraqis continues |
|
|
8 |
|
||
|
4/13/03 US fights for Tikrit |
|
|
20 |
|
||
|
4/14/03 Grenade accident in Baghdad |
2 |
|
|
|
||
|
4/15/03 Demonstration against US assigned governor of Musol |
|
|
14 civilians |
|
||
|
4/15/03 Random fighting in Tikrit |
3 |
|
|
|
||
|
4/16/03 civil unrest in Mosul |
|
|
5 civilians |
|
||
|
4/16/03 2 Arjentine Journalists die in a car crash outside Baghdad |
|
|
|
2 |
||
Us-Iraqi war started the 3rd day of the 3rd week of the 3rd month of the 3rd millennium. Saddam regime falls down after 3 weeks.
http://www.labour.org.uk/iraqhoon030403/
Global Cemetery Online, http://www.sadnews.net/CTZ/0Mem/WarM/US-IQ2/Us-iq2.htm
Chronology
March 17, 2003
March 18, 2003
March 19, 2003
March 20, 2003
March 21, 2003
March 22, 2003
March 23, 2003
March 24,
2003
March 25, 2003
March 26, 2003
March 27, 2003
March 28, 2003
March 29, 2003
March 30, 2003
March 31, 2003
April 1, 2003
April 2, 2003
April 3, 2003
April 4, 2003
April 5, 2003
April 6, 2003
April 7, 2003
08 Apr 2003
Near Miss: Saddam Hussein narrowly eacapes US raid
The launch to secure Baghdad continued with extensive bombing campaigns, targeting sites such as the Baath Party Headquarters, the principal Presidential Palace and the Information Ministry. Al-Saa Restaurant in west Baghdad was hit on the basis of firm evidence that Saddam Hussein was dining there. However, the leader is said to have just escaped the blast. 2 international journalists were killed and several injured as a US Abram tank fired upon the Palestine Hotel, known to be the sole hotel for western media. It is unclear why the tank began to fire. 1 journalist was killed when the Al-Jazeera Headquarters was hit by US fire in eastern Baghdad, prompting severe Arab criticism that the attack was intentional. US marines captured Rashid military airfield and Jumhuriya Bridge over the river Tigris in the outskirts of Baghdad facilitating access to the city. Throughout Baghdad they have encountered pockets of severe resistance from Iraqi irregulars. Supported by US special forces, Kurdish fighters have continued their advance upon the northern Iraqi controlled cities of Kirkuk and Mosul. British Commanders in Basra have appointed a local Sheikh to be the city’s civic leader and invited a leading Shia cleric to join them in meetings to organise the city’s new administration. Commanders have expressed a desire to establish civilian control as soon as possible. British troops are still concentrating on eliminating final resistance, and so do not have the man-power to prevent the looting and disorder that is spreading throughout the city. In a declaration in Hillsborough, Co Down, President Bush declared that an interim authority would be put in place in Iraq as soon as possible and that the UN would play a vital role in post-war Iraq. The president also promised to work night and day for progress in the Middle East peace process.
09 Apr 2003 The regime collapses
US forces gained control of Baghdad. Marines, entering the city on Abram tanks, approached from the west of the city. They moved east, seizing the remaining Presidential Palaces, government ministries and Baath party offices. They then pushed northwards, along the Saddam Canal, towards the Shia majority areas of the city. There was minimal resistance. Images and statues of Saddam Hussein were destroyed as they passed, either by Coalition forces, or Iraqi civilians. In Paradise Square, eastern Baghdad, a giant statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down, amidst jubilant crowds. There is uncertainty as to the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein and his sons. As news spread of the final destruction of the regime, there was rejoicing throughout Iraq. However, celebration was tinged with fear, as the lack of law enforcement unleashed a stream of looting. Coalition forces were not trained or sufficiently numerous to prevent the chaos. The fighting continued in the north as US Green Berets supported Kurdish fighters in their assault on Kirkuk. Major General Albert Whitley, the US commander charged with overseeing the humanitarian relief programme downplayed rumours of an imminent humanitarian crisis and pointed to the daily convoys of supplies from Kuwait to southern Iraq. The question of who is to rule Iraq after the Coalition Interim Authority has become pressing, as different elements of Iraqi opposition have come forward, ranging from the established Iraqi National Congress, to unknown militias. British Commanders have declared that local leaders will be chosen in Southern Iraq as delegates for an Iraqi ruling council.
10 Apr 2003 With US support, Kurdish Peshmerga attack Kirkuk
The looting in Baghdad continued, with groups turning on hospitals to empty them of their contents. The possibility of a slip into anarchy became a possibility as US forces were unable to control all the crimes. There was renewed fighting outside one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces and a mosque within the city, as it was reported that Saddam Hussein might be inside the building. 4 US soldiers were killed in another suicide attack at a checkpoint in central Baghdad. With the support of US troops and B-52 bombers, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters occupied the northern city of Kirkuk. They encountered moderate resistance from local Baath party members, but most Iraqi troops had fled. Despite US reassurance, Turkey responded to this development nervously, and declared it would send in military observers to ensure Kurdish withdrawal form the city. It was reported that Kurdish soldiers were looting in the city. US troops and Kurdish fighters also began an assault on Mosul, Iraq’s 3rd main city. In Najaf, 2 Shia clerics were murdered, evidence of the deep divisions amongst the different opposition groups within Iraq. The pentagon declared that US casualties stand at 101 killed, 399 wounded, and 7 soldiers currently held as Prisoners of War. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair addressed the Iraqi people on a new television station, named ‘Towards Freedom’ to reassure them that Iraqi self rule would be established as soon as possible.
11 Apr 2003 List of 55 most wanted Iraqis is published
Coalition forces have tried to tackle the looting in Baghdad, by calling to the city’s municipal workers to help prevent the raids. Meanwhile, buildings in the city were set alight, and the archaeological museum raided of its contents. Jay Garner, the retired general set to head the Iraqi Interim Authority visited Umm Qasr and stated that his first priority would be to set up an Iraqi police force. General Tommy Franks declared that Iraqi leaders were either dead or fleeing, and published a list of 55 leaders of the regime that would be sought out. Kurdish Peshmerga fighters withdrew form Kirkuk in order to allow US forces to move in a seize the city. Severe Iraqi resistance near Qaim, a town near the Syrian border, prompted speculation that forces might be defending a possible missile site or weapons of mass destruction. British commanders declared that British forces in the Gulf would begin to be scaled back. The German, French and Russian Presidents met in St. Petersburg in a trilateral summit on Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Blair turned down an invitation to attend.
12 Apr 2003 Arab and Kurdish forces clash in Mosul
US forces reopened two bridges in Baghdad only for a surge of looters to cross them and attack parts of the town that had not yet been raided. A psychiatric hospital was robbed. Four women were raped and two patients who could not swallow without assistance died of thirst. US marines moved to protect Humanitarian sites in Baghdad, by securing a hospital and a water treatment plant. They also declared an intention to establish a curfew. Iraqi civilians demonstrated in their capital city to urge the US to stop the disorder. Overnight bombing of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s birthplace, was initiated, as it is seen as the final stronghold of Iraqi loyalists. The town’s air strip was attacked using new ‘Litening Technology’ bombers, never before used in combat. The fighting in Qaim lessened, as Iraq troops were said to be preparing to surrender. UK forces began patrols with police in Basra to try and quell the civil disorder in the city. US Commanders declared an intention to begin reducing its military presence in the region, by withdrawing aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk. The high tech US 4th Infantry Division was moved into Iraq from Kuwait. Fighting intensified between Kurdish and Arab forces in Mosul, as US troops were forced to retreat to the city’s airfield. US commanders declared a compensation programme for any Iraqis with information on the leaders of the regime.
13 Apr 2003 Fighting begins in loyalist stronghold of Tikrit
US forces began air patrols of Baghdad and joint patrols with Iraqi security forces in an attempt to restore order in the city. China called for these attempts to be a priority as its embassy was looted. Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi opposition, declared that ‘Free Iraq Forces’ would be sent into Baghdad to help quell the disorder. US marines found a cache of 310 suicide vests ready for use in a Baghdad storehouse. US forces, supported by tanks and Cobra helicopter gunships engaged in fighting with Iraqi forces in Tikrit. Kurdish refugees returning to Kirkuk after 10 years away began to insist that Arabs living in their homes must leave. The home of a leading Shia cleric in Najaf was surrounded by gunmen who declared that he had 48 hours to leave or would face attack. Kuwaiti fire fighters put out the last oil-well fire in the Rumeila oil field. Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed claims by the captured scientific advisor to Saddam Hussein that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. The US sent home its B-2 Stealth Bombers deployed in the Indian Ocean for the Iraqi War. President Bush made a statement warning Syria of the consequences of harbouring Iraqi fugitives.
http://www.iraqcrisis.co.uk/events.php
Confirmed military action in and around Iraq
IRAQ:
· Wednesday, March 26, 2003: Elements of the 7th Cavalry Regiment face Medina armoured Republican Guard divisions outside Karbala as they push for Baghdad.
· Wednesday, March 26, 2003: Elements of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force headed to Al Kut to push into Baghdad along the Tigris and hit the Republican Guard's southern forces.
· Wednesday, March 26, 2003: Battle continues near Nasiriyah. Marines capture Iraqi military hospital along with weapons, ammunition, chemical suits and gas masks.
· Wednesday, March 26, 2003: US troops secure Talil Air base in southern Iraq.
· Wednesday, March 26, 2003: US-led war planes bombed targets in the northern part of the country including Mosul, Kirkuk and Tikrit.
· Tuesday, March 25, 2003: American Marines are engaged in a heavy battle east of Najaf for control of the Euphrates valley region and river crossings.
· Tuesday, March 25, 2003: Coalition forces confirm that 43 soilders have been killed in the campaign to date.
· Tuesday, March 25, 2003: British troops have amassed outside the southern Iraqi city of Basra in preparation for an urban assualt on the city that previously was not a military target.
· Tuesday, March 25, 2003: Coalition forces bomb two Iraqi bunkers in northern Iraq destroying one.
· Tuesday, March 25, 2003: A friendly fire exchange results in the death of 2 British soliders.
· Monday, March 24, 2003: A US Apache helicopter is downed in fighting ouside Karbala. The 2 US pilots have been captured by Iraqi forces and shown on Iraqi TV and al Jazeerah.
· Monday, March 24, 2003: US Apache helicopters attacked Armored Republican guard positions between Karbala and Al Hillah, meeting with stiff resistence.
· Monday, March 24, 2003: 70 US Special Forces troops are said to be working with Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq to destroy Ansar al-Islam strong holds in the moutainous border region between Iran and Iraq. Ansar al-Islam is beleived to have ties to al Qaeda and is blamed for a suicide bombing in northern Iraq this past weekend that killed and independent journalist.
· Monday, March 24, 2003: US coalition forces report that cruise missles have been launched again Ansar al-Islam position in northern Iraq.
· Monday, March 24, 2003: More than 200 special forces are said to be operating in northern Iraq and more continue to arrive on regular coalition flights through Turkish airspace.
· Monday, March 24, 2003: A heavy battle still rages in the southern Iraqi town of Basra that has led coalition forces to draw back from the city. Fierce fighting to control the city, which the coalition said was siezed Friday, continues.
· Monday, March 24, 2003: A bus carrying 36 civilians was bombed accidently by coalition forces as it tried to cross a bride in northwest Iraq. 5 Syrian nationals were killed and many injured, all were trying to escape fighting by fleeing to Syria.
· Sunday, March 23, 2003: An unmanned, remote-controlled Predator drone destroyed an antiaircraft artillery gun in southern Iraq on Saturday. It was the first Predator strike of Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition defense officials said. The MQ-1 Predator dropped one Hellfire II missile on the mobile antiaircraft artillery piece outside Amarah at 1:25 p.m. (5:25 a.m. Saturday EST), near the Iranian border, according to the Combined Forces Air Component Command. about 90 miles south of Baghdad.
· Sunday, March 23, 2003: The U.S. military has secured a facility in southern Iraq that Pentagon officials said might have been used to produce chemical weapons. The officials cautioned that it wasn't clear what materials were at the facility in Najaf, about 90 miles south of Baghdad.
· Sunday, March 23, 2003: US Army 11th Helicopter attack force engages the elite 2nd Armored Brigade of the Republican Guard outside Karbala, meeting stiff resistence and a hail of anti-aircraft fire described by one pilot as a 'wall of fire.'
· Sunday, March 23, 2003: US Army support team is ambushed and captured by Iraqi forces after straying from forces in the Nasiriyah area. As many as 4 were US soilders killed in the ambush and up to 6 captured. Captured troops and those killed have been shown on Iraqi television and al Jazera.
· Sunday, March 23, 2003: Heavy fighting in Nasiriyah has resulted in the death of at least 4 American troops.
· Sunday, March 23, 2003: Late reports from US are saying that a RAF plane was accidently shot down by a Patriot missile in a friendly fire incident. Details as to the pilot's condition and the circumstances of the friendly fire incident are not yet available.
· Saturday, March 22, 2003: In a Kurdish region of northern Iraq, a freelance cameraman working for the Australian Broadcasting Corp., Paul Moran, 39, died when a taxicab exploded at a checkpoint in Sayed Sadiq, the network said. Three Kurdish fighters also died, and an ABC correspondent was wounded, it said. Security officials of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan blamed the blast on a suicide bomber from an Islamic extremist group, Ansar al-Islam, which U.S. officials believe has links to al Qaeda.
· Saturday, March 22, 2003: Two British helicopters collided in the Persian Gulf during the support operations killing all 7 troops on board; 1 American and 6 British, bringing the casulties to 21 - 7 Americans and 14 British.
· Saturday, March 22, 2003: As many as 1,500 Turkish troops are reported to be poised to cross the border into Kurdish controlled northern Iraq creating some tensions between the US and Turkey. Turkey claims that the troops have been sent to the border region near Iraq to aid in any humanitarian efforts and also to monitor the Kurdish situation as the war progresses.
· Saturday, March 22, 2003: The city of Al Basrah in southern Iraq was encircled by allied forces who opted not to enter the city. After engaging minimal resistence on the outskirts of the city coalition forces passed by the without claiming continuing to Baghdad.
· Saturday, March 22, 2003: The H2 and H3 air fields, beleived to be site of Scud launchers in western Iraq, have been taken by coalition forces who clain tentative control of both installations.
· Saturday, March 22, 2003: Kurdish forces and CNN sources confirm that the city of Kirkuk has been the target of aerial bombardment for the third night of the campaign.
· Saturday, March 22, 2003: The northern city of Mosul is reported to have come under heavy bombardment for the third night in a row.
· Saturday, March 22, 2003: Though coalition forces claimed tentative control over Umm Qasr -- over 24 hours ago, allied forces continue to come under fire from pockets of resistence.
· Friday, March 21, 2003: The port city of Umm Qasr -- Iraq's only outlet to the Gulf - has fallen to allied forces. The old port was taken by British troops; U.S. Marines seized the new port.
· Friday, March 21, 2003: The port city of Umm Qasr -- Iraq's only outlet to the Gulf - has fallen to allied forces. The old port was taken by British troops; U.S. Marines seized the new port.
BAGHDAD:
KUWAIT:
· Monday, March 24, 2003: Iraq has launched 6 additional ballistic missles on Kuwait. 4 were intercepted by Patriot missiles and the remaining two were said to have hit in southern Iraq.
· Monday, March 24, 2003: A Patriot missile intercepted an Iraqi missile fired toward Kuwait about 1 a.m. Monday [5 p.m. Sunday EST], a Kuwaiti army spokesman said. The missile was intercepted north of Kuwait City and came down away from any residential area, Col. Youssef Al-Mulla told CNN. The resulting explosion could be heard as a muffled, distant boom in the Kuwaiti capital.
IRAN:
TURKEY:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/middle_east/ec22ak02.html
Copyright IPRI 2000-2003
Home
| IPRI Staff
| Publications
| Events
| Feedback
| Web Mail
| Search
| Contact
