Iraq

by Kevin Bonsor
October 2004

The Issue


Photo courtesy Department of Defense - Defense Visual Information Center
The issue of Iraq is one of the most divisive in the 2004 presidential election. Success or failure in rebuilding postwar Iraq, including the handover of power from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority to an Iraqi-led government, may directly impact who wins this year's U.S. presidential election. Americans are nearly evenly divided over whether going to war was the right decision.

From Ally to Enemy
The United States' current involvement in Iraq is deep rooted in events dating to the 1980s, when Iraq was engaged in a bloody border war (1980-88) with Iran. Nearly 1 million soldiers and civilians died in that war, which ended in a territorial stalemate. In the background of that war, the United States secretly supplied arms to Iran initially, before switching its allegiances to Iraq in 1982.

By supplying Iraq with arms and economic aid during the Iran-Iraq war, the United States, along with other countries, allowed Iraq to build a large, modern military. Just two years after the Iran-Iraq war ended, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein used his improved army to invade the small, neighboring country of Kuwait, which Iraq claimed was a province of Iraq. In January 1991, five months after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the United States launched Operation Desert Storm to free Kuwait and deter any plans Iraq might have for invading the oil-rich country of Saudi Arabia to its south. Desert Storm was a major military campaign involving heavy air strikes against the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. The United States-led coalition successfully repelled the Iraqi forces, but decided not to lead an offensive attack on Iraq, thus leaving Hussein in power. Hussein had to accept heavy sanctions, end all weapons of mass destruction, and agree to weapon inspections.

Over the next 12 years, Iraq clashed with the United States and United Nations over inspections of military sites and a no-fly zone placed on Iraq. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, disagreements between Iraq and the United States intensified. In response, the United States government tried to form a coalition that would help with an invasion of Iraq to overthrow the Hussein government and end Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program. The United States found mixed support for the war, but moved ahead with plans for an invasion anyway.

In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq without the support of the United Nations and against the wishes of many former allies, such as France and Russia. The war on Iraq is the first pre-emptive war -- a war intended to prevent a possible attack -- in United States history. The United States did find support from England, Spain, Italy, Japan, and dozens of other countries. However, the United States is still seen as the aggressor by many in the global community.

Within a month after the invasion began, the Hussein government was overthrown. In the aftermath of the war, the United States has taken on the roles of nation-builder and security force. Insurgents and foreign fighters continue to attack U.S. and coalition forces and kidnap and murder foreign workers.

Postwar Iraq
It took less than a month after the invasion began in March 2003 for U.S.-led forces to march to Baghdad and topple the Hussein government. In May 2003, U.S. President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations. While the initial goal of ousting the Hussein government was met within a couple of months, U.S. soldiers may remain in Iraq for years to come.

There are several factors that complicate the situation in postwar Iraq, including:

  • Continuing violence - Approximately 10,000 civilians have been killed since combat began in March 2003, according to a group of British and U.S. researchers who organized the Iraq Body Count project. Nearly 1,000 coalition soldiers have been killed in that same time period.

  • Terrorists - Many experts think that the instability in Iraq has allowed many foreign terrorists to enter the country. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born terrorist, has become the deadliest threat to peace. Al-Zarqawi has led large-scale bombings and attacks on U.S. and Iraqi security forces. He is also responsible for the brutal murders of foreign hostages.

  • Shiite Unrest - The large Shiite Muslim majority in Iraq has consistently rejected the presence of the United States and coalition forces. Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr was responsible for a number of attacks on U.S. forces. He is now trying to build political power for elections in 2005.

  • No WMD evidence - Although cited by the U.S. and British governments as a key reason for invading Iraq, evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program has yet to be discovered.

  • Prisoner Abuse - By April 2003, a month after the war began, the International Red Cross complained of prisoner abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq. In January 2004, a military policeman handed over evidence of Iraqi prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison to army investigators.
Many experts worry that instability in Iraq could cause increased unrest across the entire Middle East region. It's likely that the United States and other coalition countries will be involved in the rebuilding and stabilizing of Iraq for years to come.

The Handover of Power
On June 30, 2004, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority transferred governmental authority to an interim Iraqi government. This government will have sovereignty, but a multinational, U.S.-led force will remain in Iraq to provide security at the invitation of the Iraqi government. There is no timeline for a troop pullout.

Following the handover, Paul Bremer, who had led the occupation authority, immediately returned to the United States. His departure signified the official turnover of the government to the Iraqi interim government.

Several issues face the interim government and will set the tone for Iraqi-U.S. relations as the interim government tries to separate itself from U.S. influence. The most contentious issues include:

  • Bringing Saddam Hussein back to Iraq for trial - U.S. President Bush has declined to set a time for when Hussein would be turned over to Iraqi authorities. The interim government is likely to press for a quick return of the deposed Iraqi dictator.

  • The $18 billion in reconstruction funds - The funds were in U.S. control prior to June 30, and Iraqi leaders are likely to press the United States for control of that money.

  • Plans to establish a U.S. embassy in the former presidential palace - This offends many Iraqis, who feel it undermines their efforts for full sovereignty.

Badnarik: Position and Record
by Ed Grabianowski
October 2004

On his campaign Web site, Badnarik succinctly explains his Iraq position: "The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it. As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished."

Badnarik emphasizes that the Libertarian policy of non-interference with other governments is not pacifism. He believes the United States should be able to respond aggressively when attacked, stating that "Libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, not national offense." As president, Badnarik would have requested an official declaration of war from Congress, based on all possible intelligence and evidence, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. He also would have created a well-defined plan with a focused goal, rather than the abstract and seemingly endless "war on terrorism."

Record:
Since Badnarik has never held a public office, he has no voting record on this issue.

Bush: Position and Record
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush targeted Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, as an "axis of evil" that threatened the national security of the United States. Bush still claims that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, and that there was a direct link between Iraq and the al-Queda terrorist organization, which was responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 2001. As of June 2004, no conclusive evidence has been found to show that Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program or that it had ties to al-Queda.

Bush went before the U.N. in September 2002 to try and gain U.N. support for military action against Iraq. When efforts to gain U.N. backing failed, the United States, with the support of a coalition of nations, went ahead and invaded Iraq in March 2003. The invasion was the first pre-emptive war ever fought by the United States. While some criticize the decision to go to war, others hail the Bush administration for deposing Hussein, who was recognized as a brutal dictator. Bush has stated that a world without Hussein makes the word safer from terrorism.

Now that power has been handed over to the Iraqi people, Bush is saying that the United States will stay in Iraq until the job is done. However, the Bush administration has not announced a specific plan for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Kerry: Position and Record
Kerry initially voted for the congressional authorization for war in Iraq in October 2002, but soon became a critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war. Kerry continues to say that Bush should have tried harder to rally international support, including that of the United Nations. Kerry still believes that the U.S. should pursue more international involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq.

On Kerry's Web site in June 2004, Kerry suggests making Iraq part of NATO's global mission, stating:

    NATO is now a global security organization, and creating a stable and secure environment in Iraq must be one of its global missions. NATO can take on this mission in phases, beginning with taking control of Iraq's border security, and taking over responsibility for northern Iraq and/or the Polish sector, and the training of Iraqi security forces. This would free up as many as 20,000 U.S. troops, open the door to participation by non-NATO countries like India and Pakistan, and send an important message to the American people that we are not bearing the security burden in Iraq virtually alone.

Kerry also suggested that a U.N. High Commissioner should have been appointed to oversee the transition of power to Iraq. The Bush administration chose not to seek direct U.N. involvement in the handover.

Nader: Position and Record
Ralph Nader believes that congress should begin impeachment hearings against U.S. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for conducting an unconstitutional war in Iraq and for propagating five falsehoods that led to the invasion of Iraq. Nader claims that Congress unlawfully transferred war powers to the president, allowing him to conduct a war. It was unlawful, Nader claims, because the U.S. Constitution allows only Congress to decide to send a nation to war.

The five falsehoods that Nader cites include:

  • Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - Nader claims there were no such weapons.
  • Iraq had ties to al-Queda - Nader says the White House claimed a link despite CIA and FBI reports to the contrary.
  • Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States - Nader says Hussein's power in Iraq was in fact waning and was threatened by Kurds in the north.
  • Saddam Hussein was a threat to his neighbors - Nader says that Iraq was weaker than many of its neighbors, including Turkey, Iran and Israel.
  • Liberation of the Iraqi people - Nader claims the United States has often supported brutal dictators, including Hussein during the 1980s, to support its own agenda. Nader claims the real reason for the United States attacking Iraq was oil.
There are no current plans for Congress to begin impeachment hearings.

Sources: