American Foreign Policy 7
four US interests in Iraq
- Eliminating a source of trouble in the region: Saddam Hussein was openly hostile and a source of continuous trouble in a region that the US viewed as important to its national security (and that of its allies). See the discussion of longstanding US policy towards the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, above. - Morality: the Hussein regime was brutally oppressive and responsible for repeated instances of crimes against humanity - Promoting Democracy in the Middle East: replacing Hussein with a democratic regime would have served the interests of the Iraqi, the US and the international community. It would have promoted a democratic model that could have been replicated elsewhere in the region. With democracy would have come economic prosperity, political stability and peace. - Eliminating the WMD problem: this was probably the principal reason for invading Iraq. The invasion would have achieved the following goals: o Destroying any WMD Iraq might have o preventing Saddam Hussein from acquiring or using WMDs against the US, its allies or regional powers o eliminating any risk of Saddam Hussein transferring WMDs to a terrorist organization.
WMD problem in Iraq
- On one aspect of the "Threat" there was broad agreement among the US and its allies: Saddam Hussein had WMDs in the past (as proven by his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians), may still have been hiding WMDs and certainly was aiming at acquiring them if he no longer had any. There were different estimates as to the strength of the WMD evidence collected by the US intelligence services, but many if not most observers shared the view that a more or less proximate WMD problem did exist. - One of the things that fueled the suspicion that Hussein was hiding WMDs was Saddam Hussein's own behavior. He intentionally refused to clear these doubts. He believed he needed to keep his foreign enemies (Iran) and his domestic challengers wondering. Only so he could keep them at bay. If Saddam Hussein openly declared and demonstrated that he no longer had any WMDs, "he would lose one of his key instruments for inflicting fear both among his own population and Iraq's neighbors. This could diminish Iraq's position as a major force in the region. Saddam's rational choice [was} to create uncertainty or ambiguity as to whether or not he actually had these weapons." (Tor Jakobsen).
US interests in the Middle East Persian Gulf
- Protecting the free flow of oil and gas from the area to the US and its allies (Western Europe, Japan, etc.). The economies of US allies have always been highly dependent on Middle Eastern fossil fuels. - Containing hostile regional or outside powers and preventing them from destabilizing or controlling the region. - Protecting Israel from its hostile neighbors and ensuring its survival. - Containing and pursuing terrorist organizations operating in the Middle East - Preventing WMD proliferation in the region.
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S INTENTIONS: there was strong disagreement about Saddam Hussein's intentions and personality.
According to SUPPORTERS of the invasion: - Saddam Hussein was (i) Irrational or, at best, (ii) an extreme risk taker "who plays dangerous games without realizing how dangerous they truly are" (Kenneth Pollack). - Assuming he transferred WMDs to terrorists, they too would act irrationally and thus could not be deterred. You cannot "deter" an irrational party because it is unable to apply a rational calculation of costs and benefits in its decision making. Based on tis assumption, supporters of the invasion claimed that Hussein was likely to use the WMDs as it did against Iraqi Kurds and Iranians. Iraq would use WMDs notwithstanding the threat of retaliation from the US. Since deterrence would not work, the only other valid option was disarming the Iraqi regime. What was needed was an invasion followed by an overthrow of the regime and the destruction of any WMDs. The assessment of Saddam Hussein as irrational was largely based on his disastrous decisions to launch the war against Iran in 1980 and to invade Kuwait in 1990. According to OPPONENTS of the invasion of Iraq: - Saddam Hussein was a rational calculator of costs and benefits, and of risks and opportunities and thus could be effectively deterred through the threat of retaliation, without resorting to an invasion. The decisions to attack Iran, to invade Kuwait and to use chemical weapons on Kurds and Iranians, could be interpreted in a way that demonstrated Hussein's rationality: - The war against Iran: the conflict could reasonably be viewed as inevitable, given the open hostility and threatening rhetoric of the Iranian revolutionary regime. Iran posed a threat to Iraq and to the rest of the region and had repeatedly declared its interest in spreading its religious revolutionary principles across the region. Saddam's decision "was not a reckless adventure, it was an opportunistic response to significant threat." (Mearsheimer and Walt). - The invasion of Kuwait: Saddam Hussein correctly assessed Kuwait's military weakness. He also reasonably assumed that the US would not have the stomach to deploy large number of troops to fight a large war in the Persian Gulf against a regional power (Iraq) whom the US had actually helped in the war with Iran, and whom the US saw as a counterbalance to Iranian expansionism in the region. - The willingness to use chemical weapons: in both previous instances (against Iraqi Kurds and against Iranians), Saddam Hussein had ordered chemical attacks against adversaries who did not have WMDs to retaliate with. While fighting - and losing - the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein had refrained from using WMDs against adversaries such as the US who could retaliate in kind. This self-restraint showed rationality. - Hussein alleged willingness to transfer WMDs to terrorists: in fact the historical record demonstrated that when Hussein definitely had WMDs (in the 1980s), he had not shared them with terrorists, most likely for fear of losing control over them and running the risk that the terrorists would not use them as he would have preferred.
The Us and Iraq during the 1990s: a decade of diplomatic crises and military skirmishes.
After the Persian Gulf War, the US and its allies expected the weakened and brutal regime of Saddam Hussein to be overthrown by the Iraqi people. This did not happen. Instead, the regime survived through the 1990s notwithstanding frequent crises and tensions. - Iraqi violations of the terms of the 1991 truce: these sometimes escalated into brief military action by Iraqi forces and bombing raids by the US and its allies. - Inadequate cooperation by Iraqi officials with international weapons inspectors sent to verify Iraq's destruction and abandonment of any WMD program: this reluctance and ambivalence lead many to suspect that Iraq was hiding WMDs. - In the United States, the Iraq Liberation Act is passed in 1998, which makes it official US policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein and promote the emergence of a democratic government".
after spet 11
Before the end of 2001, the US begins its invasion of Afghanistan, the country blamed for harboring Al Qaeda and its leadership and allowing it to plan and organize the 9/11 attacks. Then it turns its attention to Iraq. In 2002, the George W. Bush Administration starts making the case for an invasion of Iraq. SEVEN REASONS presented in support of the US invasion of Iraq (which will start in 2003): - The possible presence of WMDs, combined with the openly aggressive statements by Iraqi Leader Saddam Hussein o Under the Bush Doctrine, the US reserved the right to carry out preemptive strikes against an openly hostile power who could still have or be in the process of acquiring WMDs: Iraq had developed - and used - WMDs in the past and was forced to destroy them following its defeat in the Persian Gulf War Iraq refused to allow full access to international inspectors tasked with verifying whether it had WMDs. Saddam Hussein was deliberately muddling the waters as to Iraq's WMD capabilities - The possibility of ties between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups (including Al Qaeda). In previous years, Iraq had officially entertained close relationships with well known international terrorist groups and their leaders. - Punishing Iraq (by invading it) would show other potentially dangerous rogue states that there would be severe consequences for engaging in aggressive action and acting defiantly vis à vis the international community; - Reaffirming the obligation by all states to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. Saddam Hussein had repeatedly violated UNSC resolutions by refusing to allow nuclear inspectors to verify the absence of WMD. - Iraqi territory could provide US forces with a forward staging area in its war against terrorism - The people of Iraq would be freed from a brutal dictatorship, a shattered economic system, etc. - Iraq becoming a peaceful democracy would make it a model for other middle eastern states and a source of stability for the entire region.
The Kurdish and Shia massacres of 1991 trigger the first Humanitarian Intervention of the post-Cold War Era
Immediately following the liberation of Kuwait, Iraqi Kurds and Iraqi Shiites rise against the regime, confident that Saddam's forces are weakened by the war and hoping in help from the victorious allies. The regime reacts with extreme brutality. It destroys villages and massacres tens of thousands of civilians. The US, the UK and France decide to intervene in defense of the civilian populations and impose two no-fly-zones, one in the north, protecting the Kurds from Iraqi air attacks, and one in the south protecting the Shiites. The massacres cease. This is often considered the first instance of "Humanitarian Intervention" of the post-Cold War era.
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)
In 1990, Saddam Hussein's Iraq invades the small, oil-rich Kuwait. - Reasons for the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq: o The Iraqi economy was devastated by the long war against Iran. Saddam Hussein was desperately seeking resources. o Iraq had been claiming that Kuwait belonged to it since the 1960s. Iraqis blamed the British for granting independence in 1961 to an area that was meant to be part of the newly-independent Iraq o Iraq claimed Kuwait was violating agreements made at OPEC concerning the allocation of quotas of oil production intended to maintain favorable prices. This was hurting Iraqi oil export revenues o Saddam Hussein misread (misperceived) the US' commitment to the independence of Kuwait, believing the US did not have the stomach for a high casualty war in the Middle East. - The US response to Kuwait's invasion: Operation Desert Storm o The US asks the UN Security Council to authorize the use of force to assist Kuwait. The UN SC approves (Russia and China do not veto the resolution) o The Bush Administration is able to put together an unprecedented coalition of Western allies, Arab countries and others who agree to join a US-led military intervention aimed at liberating Kuwait: 39 countries join the effort, including most of the US' western allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, South Korea, Argentina, etc. In total about 750,000 troops participate. Of these about 500,000 are from the US. Most of these troops are deployed on the territory of friendly Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia. o An ultimatum is delivered to Saddam Hussein who is asked to withdraw from Kuwait or face war. He refuses and the allies begin an air campaign against Iraqi targets in Iraq and Kuwait. After 40 days of air campaign, the ground war starts. Iraqi forces are no match for the international armada supported by air superiority. As they withdraw, Iraqi troops are decimated by unrelenting air attacks. Iraq vacates Kuwait and offers to surrender four days after the beginning of the ground war. The Bush Administration decides to stop the slaughter of retreating Iraqi troops and accepts the surrender. Allied troops stop their advance and do not take Baghdad. Saddam Hussein stays in power
Iran-Iraq war 1980-1988
Iran went through its revolution in 1978-1979. The Shah's regime was replaced with a radical, theocratic government led by an aging religious figure, Ayatollah Khomeini. The new religious Iranian leadership and 90% of the population were Shiite Muslims, while Iraq was ruled by Sunnis. Iraq and Iran had been enemies for decades and the new revolutionary regime in Iran frequently resorted to hostile and threatening rhetoric against Iraq. Iran also fully alienated its former ally, the US, by allowing the takeover of the US embassy and refusing to release the US diplomats held hostage for more than a year. Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, believed this was a good time to attack Iran which was diplomatically isolated and still recovering from the revolutionary upheaval. The war lasted 8 years and, after a long stalemate, ended with the borders largely where they were before the war. Casualties on both sides were extremely high, between 500,000 and one million. Iranians used young, aspiring martyrs to open up minefields for infantry and armored units while Iraq used chemical weapons. The US and other western states, alienated by the revolutionary regime in Iran, provided some indirect support to the Iraqis, mostly in the form of intelligence. During the last part of the war, the Iraqi regime used chemical weapons to suppress its own Kurds, killing tens of thousands in the "Anfal Campaign" which was labeled a genocide by many observers. The Iraqi regime justified its actions by accusing Iraqi Kurds of siding with Iran and helping its efforts to undermine the Iraqi regime.
framework to analyze foreign policy
interests, threats, and tools - Conceptualizing, identifying and prioritizing American interests; - Assessing the nature and magnitude of threats to those interests; and - Evaluating the relative effectiveness of the various tools of influence available to defend those interests from those threats.
