Difference between revisions of "Operation Iraqi Freedom"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 10: Line 10:
 
===Insurgency===
 
===Insurgency===
 
However, Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt</ref>.
 
However, Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml</ref> The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"<ref>http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt</ref>.
 +
 +
Many discount these <i>secret</i> polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."
 +
 +
Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - proven record? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?"
  
 
A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm</ref>  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html</ref>
 
A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm</ref>  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html</ref>
 +
 +
The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign occupation is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.
  
 
Since the removal of Saddam, the United States has been in the middle of Arab Sunni and Arab Shia.  Among the Arab Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks.  Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule.  To many if not most Sunnis, the US is viewed as the enemy because it supports Shia majority rule.  As the Arab Sunni interpret Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation.  Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilge of doing so.<ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], 23 January 2007.</ref>
 
Since the removal of Saddam, the United States has been in the middle of Arab Sunni and Arab Shia.  Among the Arab Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks.  Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule.  To many if not most Sunnis, the US is viewed as the enemy because it supports Shia majority rule.  As the Arab Sunni interpret Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation.  Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilge of doing so.<ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], 23 January 2007.</ref>
 +
 +
===The Surge===
 +
 +
Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent strong­hold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html </ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate” encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighbouring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defence” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.
  
 
===Weapons of Mass Destruction===
 
===Weapons of Mass Destruction===

Revision as of 21:23, March 21, 2007

2003 Iraq War (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world[Citation Needed], started when the United States and allies including the United Kingdom[1] launched a combat operation against Iraq, with the stated goal of deposing dictator Saddam Hussein and bring Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction programs. The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The administration argues that the war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led War on Terrorism. Democrats have criticised the administration for percieved blunders in the war on terror, and have themselves been criticized for doing so.

Iraqi Liberation

Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the proceeding months, were optimistic about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-Zogby poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better".[2] Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. [3] Since 2004, the unceasing violence by the insurgents has caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. [4]

2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. It also found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. The survey, published March 19, 2007, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government. [5]

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll [6]and found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." [7] A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” [8]

Insurgency

However, Iraqi opposition to the American presence, both politically and militarily, has gradually increased since 2003. A secret British Ministry of Defence poll conducted in late 2005 found that 82 percent of Iraqis were "strongly opposed" to the presence of Coalition soldiers in Iraq.[9] The same poll found support for Iraqi rebels at 45%, rising to 65% in Maysan province, although a poll by the IRI in March 2006 found 78% of respondents answered that "violence is never acceptable"[10].

Many discount these secret polls because they are biased in how the questions are asked ("Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?") and normally have been taken in the areas which have large numbers of insurgent sympathizers in the population, such as Saddam's hometown of Tikrit. The polling numbers are not included or references as to how this "secret" poll was conducted in the above reference. The lack of open disclosure and the fact that it was used to discount the intelligence to that point which was quoted in the same article as the secret poll as, "The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq".. leads critics to conclude that this is not a fair or accurate assessment of Iraqi opinion. Also, the article states, "The findings differ markedly from a survey carried out by the BBC in March 2004 in which the overwhelming consensus among the 2,500 Iraqis questioned was that life was good. More of those questioned supported the war than opposed it." It also contradicts the optimism shown by the Iraqis in the polls taken (March 2007) quoted in the portion above "Iraqi Liberation."

Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a proven record of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - proven record? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?"

A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.[11] Similarly, a U.S. State Department poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". [12] Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring Jordan and Syria since the 2003 invasion.[13]

The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign occupation is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.

Since the removal of Saddam, the United States has been in the middle of Arab Sunni and Arab Shia. Among the Arab Shia majority, notably the Jaysh Al-Madhi, have began to attack American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule. To many if not most Sunnis, the US is viewed as the enemy because it supports Shia majority rule. As the Arab Sunni interpret Muslim law, only Muslims may rule a Muslim state, and the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilge of doing so.[14]

The Surge

Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent strong­hold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). [15] The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamist radicals that they had established a “caliphate” encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighbouring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defence” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Although no physical weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and it has yielded some results so far. Persons associated with the programs have been detained and documents related to various programs have yet to be translated. Many, many people say they saw WMD's in Iraq, and the President and Tony Blair staked their entire careers on their existence - it beggars belief to think that with the access they have to information, that they would have taken such a risk had such weapons not existed. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.[16] Some believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to Syria, before the onset of the war.

In 2004, the Iraq Survey Group released what has been called the Duelfer Report, named after chairman Charles Duelfer. The report was controversial on both sides of the political arena, since while it found that Saddam Hussein was intent on production of WMDs and actively working to undermine international sanctions to do so (in particular by gaming the Oil-for-Food program), the report also found that Hussein's capacity to produce WMDs had deteriorated significantly since 1991, the end of the First Gulf War when Hussein effectively terminated the functional operation of his nuclear program, that no physical WMDs were in Iraq at the time of invasion, and that any remaining WMD-related programs were "not of a militarily significant capability."[17] Former Survey Group Chairman David Kay said "I don't think they existed... What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties"[18]

Costs

(Needs more statistics) Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.[19]

References

  1. ↑ http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/
  2. ↑ http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991
  3. ↑ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm
  4. ↑ [1] Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007
  5. ↑ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece
  6. ↑ http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf
  7. ↑ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece
  8. ↑ http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html
  9. ↑ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
  10. ↑ http://www.iri.org/mena/iraq/pdfs/2006-04-27-Iraq%20poll%20March%20March.ppt
  11. ↑ http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm
  12. ↑ http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm
  13. ↑ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html
  14. ↑ Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on Securing America's Interest in Iraq, 23 January 2007.
  15. ↑ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html
  16. ↑ Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD, 30 September 2004.
  17. ↑ BBC News - Report Concludes No WMD in Iraq 7 October 2004
  18. ↑ CNN.com - Transcript: David Kay at Senate hearing 28 January 2004.
  19. ↑ Iraq: the hidden cost of the war

External links

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Operation_Iraqi_Freedom&oldid=55237"