 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
An
Immoral War thrust upon Iraqi People - Ajoy Roy What
is wrong with Iraq and wherein lies Iraq's fault ? Iraq's
uncalled for aggression against Kuwait
� Saddam Hussein's launching of second gulf war (1990-91) against Kuwait is yet another example of his international crime. President's chauvinism found expression when he in order to show his military-might invaded Kuwait in 1990, a small gulf state. It appeared the autocratic ruler has not learnt any lesson from invasion of Iran, which brought immense sufferings to his own people apart from millions of casualties during 1980-88. This is simply madness on the part of the dictator and uncalled for. Even his closest ally or friend Syria or Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat did not endorse this adventurism of Saddam. Agreed, Iraq all along after the creation of Kingdom of Kuwait could not swallow its continued existence. The fault of Kuwait in the eye of Saddam lies in the following facts: � Kuwait is a creation of British conspiracy and as such it is a puppet kingdom always serving the interest of West against the Arab nationalism. It is, therefore a constant threat to Iraq?s sovereignty & safety. �
Traditionally and historically the region had always
belonged to Iraq- during Abbasid Caliphate as well as Ottoman Empire.
So modern Iraq, an inheritor of these two empires, rightly (?) have a
claim on this small Kingdom. �
The Kuwait gives an outlet to western shore of Persian
Gulf, an absolute necessary for Iraq?s sea born export & import
traffic. Its economy largely depends on two openings to sea, one via
Shat Al Arab in Iran, and another via Kuwaiti ports to Persian Gulf.
More over Kuwait?s oil resources would very fast bring war-ravaged
economy of Iraq to salvation. �
Since Kuwait is ruled by of a kind of autocratic
monarchism, its people have no taste of democracy and no share in the
state affairs. Iraq being a champion of Baathist form of socialism and
democracy based on Arab nationalism & aspiration it has the moral
right to free the Kuwaiti people from the imprisonment of the Kuwaiti
Ruler and his few aides. So in Saddam?s eye Kuwait-operation was an operation
freedom and union of breakaway Kuwaiti people with mainstream of
the great Iraqi People. To Saddam it is the same thing as breaking
down of Berlin wall and union German brothers on both sides.
From
ancient Mesopotamia to modern state of Iraq Apart from economic and historical reasons can Iraqi Government under Saddam morally justify attack of Kuwait? The present Iraqi leaders should remember that the modern Iraq was also a creation of the victorious Allied forces after the World War I (1914-18) came to an end, with active cooperation and conspiracy of some Arab leaders who helped the Allied forces against the Ottoman rulers. During the war the British imperialists instigated the Arab rebels to take up arms and in fact had led the Arab forces against the Ottoman Empire, promising the Arabs independence if the Ottomans were defeated. With the defeat of the Ottoman power and its allies (Germany and Austria-Hungary), the British chalked out a new plan for the ancient Mesopotamia, creating Iraq, a country whose population included Arabs with two major religious divisions (Shias & Sunnis) and non-Arab ethnic people of different tribal allegiance. If imperialist occupation of a territory in the historical past becomes a legal or moral basis to claim the territory then political geography of the present day world would have to be changed drastically. Can modern Turkey, the successor of Ottoman empire, claim its suzerainty over entire modern Iraq ? In a similar logic, Afghanistan can claim the entire Pakistan as once Afghan rulers like Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni or Ahmed Shah Durani occupied entire territory now constituting Pakistan from the falling Mughals ? Or can modern India claim Afghanistan as part of India as it was once a part of greater Bhratvarsa or Jambudwipa ; or can India put its claim over Myanmar- because once it was under the British India, which modern India claims to be its successor? I cam cite hundreds of such instances from history. Hitler in the beginning of Second World War championed the so-called Aryan nationalism (?) and greater Germany. Saddam, claimed to be champion of democracy and Arab nationalism, precisely tried to follow the footsteps of Hitler. When he had denied democracy in his own country, he had no moral or ethical right to invade Kuwait in the name of freeing those occupied (!) people. In Bush occupation of Iraq, Iraqis showed little enthusiasm in hailing the coalition force as their liberators, the same thing happened during Saddami occupation of Kuwait, - the Kuwaitis did not come down to streets hailing the Iraqi invaders as their liberators, nor they led any uprising against the Shaikh to overthrow him from the state war. In fact the war once again turned to be boomerang for Saddam. For his childish chauvinism Iraqi people paid very dearly and finally Saddam was brought down by Anglo-US coalition force in 1991 when Iraq was forced to sign ceasefire under heavy US led forward thrust on Iraq with day-out day-in continuous missile and air onslaught. . Hence none of the arguments stated above could be entertained in favour of Saddam?s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. We may put forward that in order to divert the attention of his supporters at home and common masses of Iraq Saddam had to find some way. The people of Iraq was getting impatient with Saddam?s regime because of its autocratic rule devoid of any seed of democracy, suppression of opposition voices and criticism, failure to solve Kurdish problem and failure of putting down Shia resentment effectively. And he thought that his countrymen forgetting their internal & domestic problem will hail invasion of Kuwait, and he would emerge as national hero. But alas, apart from a handful of his supporters in the power elite, general mass was silent and even critical of this chauvinism. Even we keep in mind that there exits border problem of very complex nature between two neighboring countries and other form of intricate problem, in no way thrusting a unilateral solution in the form of military adventurism could be supported either from moral stand or from pragmatic view. War always bring immense sufferings, introduce newer elements and increase the dimension to existing problems. Many experts in middle east affairs tend to lend support to Saddam?s action of applying force to solve so called Iraq-Kuwait problem on the plea that that the problem is much more complicated and complex. They even call the worldview held by most of the member-countries of UNO and the view held by the Security Council ?greatly oversimplified, a one dimensional portrait, lacking in context and nuance?. For the sake of neutrality let me express their views briefly. These pundits extend academic support to Saddam?s unilateral invasion of Kuwait on the following grounds. They traced the origin of stringent relation between the two countries in remote past opining that Kuwait had once been a part of Basra during the Ottoman rule, and only became a separate country while under British control. This view holds that the many decades of struggle to resolve the boundary issue, repeated attempts by the Arab states to mediate according to Islamic traditions (!) of consultation and peaceful resolution within the faith just failed and they accuse Kuwait rather than Iraq for the failure. It is further contended that Saddam?s war with Iran how exacerbated the boundary tensions. And because of long drawn war with Iran Iraq badly needed oil revenue to repay wartime loans and to rebuild its economy, but Kuwait- these mid-east analysts alleged that Kuwait persisted in pumping far beyond its OPEC quota (?), driving down prices, and thus costing Iraq billions of dollars of revenue. These analysts charged Kuwait openly for foiling Arab attempts to mediate this clash over oil prices as well as longstanding boundary dispute, frustrating efforts to resolve this crisis by peaceful means. Needless to say these views are the typical arguments the Saddam regime have been put forwarding in justification of its immoral action since Iraq occupied Kuwait in order to solve once for all tradition-bound historical boundary problem. I have already refuted earlier the arguments of the regime and the scholars supporting his stand- searching justification in history, legacy and failure of Islamic tradition of peaceful mediation. If Kuwait is pumping far beyond (- how far beyond ? ) OPEC quota, the OPEQ countries were to look into this problem and take measure against Kuwait, not Iraq. The OPEC is there to look after the interest of each member countries and monitoring oil prices. The rise of oil price affects not only the oil producing nations but it severely hits world economy, more particularly of Asian and so-called least developed countries. Therefore it is the business of OPEC and Arab league to fix oil price in the larger context of world reaction. Since Iraq needed his revenues from her oil resources because of its own make economic disarray as a result of adventurous invasion of Iran, measures must be taken to raise the oil price is a childish argument. Iraq had to pay for its misdeeds. And look, how treacherous the Saddam-regime is- Kuwait advanced billions of dollars loan to Iraq for rebuilding its war shattered economy, and the same Iraq paid back its gratitude by pushing in its army into the territory of Kuwait, the beneficent ! As regards history, I have already put forward fallacies against such reasons. If we are to take into account of history of conquering one country by another, as I said earlier, the modern Iraq, which never existed before 1921, should be a province of greater Turkey. I may just add another historical fact here- before the advent of Islam to old Mesopotamia, the Persian Emperor Kiros conquered the city of Babylon in 538 BC, and then during the reign of powerful Persian Emperor Darius (6th century ? beginning of 5th century BC) the vast track of lands extending from the river Sindh in India to shores of Nile in Egypt came under his empire. If historical arguments are to be followed as Saddam intended with the support of some scholars, the Iraq or Old Mesopotamia should be an integral part of modern Iran. Such is the history. As regards creation of Kuwait as an artificial state by British, as I pointed out earlier so also the present Iraq. On this argument Saddam has no right to wither away a member state of UNO by annexing its territory to his own interest. If arguments of such thinking are extended then Pakistan is also an artificial state, and as such no right to exist ! And many African states would fall in this class of ?artificial states?. As regards pumping of oil, Kuwait was siphoning off crude oil from the Ar-Rumaylah oil fields. This enraged Saddam regime as it considered these sites are within the territory it had historic claim. Regarding keeping down oil prices why these experts of middle east singled out Kuwait is not readily understood (or perhaps Kuwait was singled out as a target because it was a militarily weak country compared to might of Iraq), when Saddam himself accused all the Persian Gulf states of conspiring (against Iraq ?) to hold down oil prices, thereby damaging the interests of war-torn Iraq and catering the wishes of the Western powers. The Iraqi government in fact went a step further, when its foreign minister insisted that Kuwait, Saudi Arab, and the gulf emirates make partial compensation for these alleged ?crimes? by canceling 30 billion US dollars of Iraq?s foreign debt. This was the immediate premise of attacking Kuwait as when these allegations and demands were being made, meanwhile 100,000 of Iraq?s best troops concentrated on the Kuwaiti border. In brief a frustrated Saddam Hussein turned his sights to the wealthy but vulnerable Arab Sheikhdom to the south. Had he any alternative (?) - perhaps not! In order to keep himself in power he had to undertake another miscalculated adventurism, otherwise disgruntled people of Iraq would topple him, he feared! These demands and allegations of provocative nature against gulf kingdoms and open military preparations near the Kuwaiti border made by the Iraqi government created anxiety & concern, if not panic, among the Arab states. Egyptian President Hosne Mubarak immediately brought Iraq and Kuwait to negotiation table in Saudi Arabia, hoping to diffuse the tense situation without the intervention of any outside power including USA. But Saddam showed little interest in a negotiated settlement and finally broke it off as he on the very next day, August 2, 1900, ordered his army to march into Kuwait. Hussein made some mistakes in his calculations in this brave posture: � Firstly, he assumed that his fellow Arab countries would be forced to accept ?occupation and despoliation of Kuwait? as fait accompli. � Secondly, even if the Arabs did not approve of his seizure over Kuwait, they would not call upon outside powers particularly Western powers. But he misjudged. Instead, the government of Kuwait who fled to Saudi Arabia, and the panicky Saudi king Fahd send SOS at once to Washington and United Nations for help. The superpowers including USA, British and Soviet governments condemned the Iraqi action as aggression. The UN Security Council immediately demanded the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait soil. � Thirdly Iraq did not anticipated that its unilateral action will bring in universal condemnation and deplore. USA went a step further when its president Bush (Senior) invoked Carter doctrine by declaring that the integrity of Saudi Arabia, now exposed to Iraqi invasion, was a vital American interest. Even in Arab league, two-thirds of the 21 members likewise condemned Iraq?s aggression. Within days the United States, the European Community, the Soviet Union, and Japan all imposed an embargo on Iraq. After only a few days on 6th August, 1990, the Security Council voted for strict economic sanctions on Iraq (with only Cuba and Yemen abstaining), - this was beyond the apprehension of Iraq. � Fourthly, Saddam Hussein could not foresee that USA and other super powers (UK & France) would militarily intervene in favour of Kuwait nor he could imagine that Security Council would not only call for unconditional withdrawal of forces from Kuwait, but also invoke series of economic sanctions against Iraq. In fact Iraq became totally isolated. This had never been so in the history of Iraq. � Fifthly, Saddam in the light of USA?s miserable experience in Vietnam War and the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-80 during Jim Carter?s tenure misjudged that the USA to be willing and able to take up a serious challenge in Asia, even one mounted by a third world country. He did not realize the technological advancement in modern warfare took place since Vietnam War. In theses days of warfare air and pinpointed guided missiles play a leading role, the infantry and armored units came only in final assault. In fact on the same day Security Council endorsed economic sanctions, the Saudi King appealed for American military protection for his country to which President Bush (Senior) reacted positively by invoking what he called ?Operation Desert Shield? aimed to stop further Iraqi drive towards Saudi kingdom. He immediately deployed 200,000 troops to the northern deserts of Saudi Arabia, later on augmented by British and French units with naval and air supports. The operation desert shield had limited purpose- (1) to deter Iraq from attacking Saudi Arabia, (2) seizing control of one third of the world's oil reserves. Later on Egypt and 12 other Arab League nations joined the apart from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait itself, US led coalition force. Hussein answered this gesture of his Arab colleagues calling them traitors of Arab cause and declared Jihad against the coalition force, forgetting that Iraqi regime under Saddam only provided lip service to the Muslim cause including that of Palestine. Irresistible Saddam however responded to international pressure by formally annexing Kuwait as Iraq?s 19th province on 8th August, 1990, an act Security Council instantly condemned and detaining all foreigners caught in Kuwait and Iraq as hostages.
UN inspired ceasefire and sanctions against Iraq This is the first time since the days of cold war between the West and Soviet Union the US and Soviet Union saw an international problem from the same view point despite the fact that Soviets had some soft corner for Saddam government. As for UNO, Iraq-Kuwait conflict appears to be a test of the world body as a genuine force for peace, and thus Soviet-Western cooperation. USA, in the voice of its president, opined the Persian Gulf crisis as a test case for the ?new world order?. As the crisis was deepening the coalition force countries managed to swing the world opinion in their favour and succeeded presenting a united front against Iraq. A large contingent of American troops based in Germany was transferred to Saudi Arabia available for operation desert shield. This is a clear indication on the part of the US government that Russian Red Army no longer present a danger in Europe. Only a handful of neighbouring countries like Jordan, Algeria, Sudan, Tunisia, Yemen, and the PLO gave some support to Iraq urging coalition front not intervene militarily. As it seemed Saddam would not withdraw its troops from Kuwait in spite of UN?s repeated call, finally the Security Council on 25th August resolved permitting allied ships in the Persian Gulf to use force to enforce the embargo against Iraq. But as Saddam remained unmoved Bush (senior) and Gorbachev met in Helsinki on 9th September issuing a joint declaration calling for Iraq to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait. Earlier Bush declared, ?the annexation of Kuwait will not stand?. Saddam Hussein, possibly thinking that united front and UN meant business, he showed some leniency by releasing foreign hostages detained in Kuwait. This act prompted France and Russia to begin a dialogue with the autocratic regime and hectic diplomatic efforts from October 1990 to January 1991 continued to find a diplomatic solution in order to avoid a head-on outbreak of armed hostilities. But diplomatic efforts failed. Saddam however hinted that his troops might withdraw if Ar-Rumaylah oil fields remained under the possession of Iraq. USA and other members of the front rejected Iraqi demand urging once again Iraq to unconditional withdrawal as per UN resolution. The Security Council in the meanwhile stiffened its attitude adopting a resolution holding Iraq liable for reparations for all damage caused in Kuwait by its invasion and seizure. Bush, in November doubled the size of the ?Desert Shield? forces from 200,000 to 400, 000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines so that the allied force, if needed, would have ?an adequate offensive military option?. Saddam reacted to this act of united front by reinforcing his own occupation forces to 680,000. In the meanwhile a serious dilemma was popping in the world opinion and many questions being asked : Firstly, would or could ultimately America or the united front intervene militarily to liberate Kuwait ?-- or they would prefer to use UN pressure on Iraq by adopting multiple UN resolutions as bargaining chips - - sacrificing some in return for Iraq to withdraw from the soil of Kuwait. Secondly, many started thinking would mere withdrawal of Iraqi forces suffice to pacify the region. They were questioning Saddam?s genuineness for keeping peace in the sensitive area. He had proved in the past that to him an aggressive war is an effective tool of his state policy. Thirdly, over the last 10 years following his futile invasion of Iran the regime of Saddam Hussein spent his oil revenues to equip his military units with most sophisticated weapons including chemical-biological agents and nuclear weapons facilities that could produce warheads. With the active cooperation of Soviet Union and even USA, he had built up a huge army. Thinking continued that mere withdrawal of Iraqis would not bring in genuine security and peace in the middle east, especially in the Gulf region if destruction of the offensive capability and perhaps removal of autocratic regime of Hussein from the seat of power were not carried out. This was a sincere and genuine concern for many middle-east analysts, many of whom opined that such goals were achievable only through war. The USA however repeated its insistence that no reward of occupation in any form be admitted to Iraq except unconditional withdrawal. Finally on 29th November, President Bush and the USA received authorization from the Security Council to use all means including force necessary in the gulf if Iraq failed to comply with all UN resolutions by 15th January, 1991. This is a unique victory on the part of USA and its president. US senate finally voted 52-47, and the house 250-183, to authorize the President to use force in gulf crisis. Emboldened with these authorizations Bush declared that it was not his responsibility to provide the Iraqi President with a way out and that he would not permit the autocratic dictator to appear, in the eyes of the Arabs, as a hero who had stood up to the American imperialists. Considering the mood of the congress and the senate members, my thinking is that Iraq could have, probably, tied Bush?s hands just by making some conciliatory gestures. Instead Iraqi leader remained defiant and played into Bush?s trap. He refused to respond constructively to Soviet-France, appear to be genuine well-wishers of the Iraqi people trying best to avoid the horror of war, overtures, remained defiant and repeated his useless & fruitless rhetoric.
The result of US-Iraq war was a total isolation of Iraq from the rest of the world comity of nations not only in Western world but also even in the countries of Islamic Umma. Even the then Bangladesh government of Khaleda Begum decided to part with Iraq, although her fundamentalist supporters led by Maulana Mannan, a prominent rajakar of 1971-war, flooded the streets of Dhaka with processions, and rallies with full throated war cry (Jihad) in favor of Saddam. The ceasefire followed series of UN sponsored sanctions those over the years crippled Iraq economically as well as militarily. It became truly a weak country in every respect except in the rhetoric empty outbursts of Saddam Hussein and his autocratic regime. Two gulf wars did not teach them lesson to behave themselves and come to terms with the disgruntled Shia majorities in the south & central Iraq and with nationalist Kurdish minorities in the north. Instead President Saddam continued his repressive and tyrannical measures against them with more vigour and ferocity tantamount to genocide. Final
Showdown Another miscalculation Saddam had made- his wring assumption that January 15-ultimatum of UN a mere American bluff. He just ignored to it as the date of ultimatum expired. On 16th January Bush announced that Operation Desert Shield had been converted to ?Operation Desert Storm? and that the liberation of Kuwait had began. He termed it not as war against Iraq but a counter offensive, as war had been started by Iraq in last August, with a view to drive back the aggressor. Immediately after words, hundreds of US bombers, augmented by French, UK, Saudi and Kuwaiti war planes and US Navy cruise missiles, started pounding day after day relentlessly precision-guided bombs, apart from military targets in Iraq and Kuwait, on Iraqi command and control centres, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons plants, conventional weapons establishments, electrical power establishments, bridges-dams, and all military and government installations. World with unprecedented horror and shock witnessed for the first time the devastating power of technological warfare. The civilian destruction, casualties, injury, killing were bound to happen in an unimaginable magnitude and dimensions. Even the hospitals, children homes, orphanages and humanitarian-welfare establishments could not escape the wrath of war. Needless to say the liberation Kuwait brought untold sufferings to innocent Iraqi civilians for no fault of their own. If any person had to be singled out for this misery he was Saddam Hussein, the arrogant, devoid of any common sense and intelligence, ruthless dictator of Iraq. As usual Iraqi president?s response to this unmatched offensive of utmost technological supremacy, was his rhetoric-hollow wards coupled with issuing threats of terror weapons of mass destruction including forbidden weapons of warfare. He declared jihad against the infidel USA and call upon the Muslim Umma to unite against the satanic enemy, the united front countries. He warned the allied forces that in this ?mother of all battles?, they would be drowned in ?pools of their own blood.? In order to divert the attention and bring out division among the Arab countries he fired at least 39 Scud surface-surface missiles targeting Tel Aviv and Jerusalem- most falling harmlessly causing no severe damage. Later on most of the projectiles were neutralized in the sky by the American Patriot antimissile missiles. But Saddam?s objective for hoping Israeli retaliation, was not achieved as Israel, at the advice of the USA remained cool and maintained remarkable reticence, though was understandably furious. The Arab-West coalition hung together with much displeasure of Saddam. From the very begining of war it was apparent to any sensible & logical war analysts that Iraq could meet this challenge with little or no meaningful resistance. Within a day its air defense system was completely eliminated and its warplanes took shelter in the neighbouring country Iran, a traditional enemy country, but now neutral. In a desperate attempt Iraq authority opened Kuwait oil pipelines into the see creating a vast & wide spread oil slick in hopes of clogging Saudi fresh-water plants and causing severe environmental pollution in the sea costs. Saddam thought the extent of environmental pollution as a consequence of war would create world opinion against the allied force. It appeared to me at that time that only way left to Saddam to win the war to draw the allied force in a face to face confrontation on the ground and entrap them there inflicting casualties as heavy as possible that would turn the American public opinion against their president urging him to stop war, the opinion most elected leader fear. The final ground onslaught began just after the dead line of 23rd February; Saudi-Kuwait ground force moved toward Kuwait city along the coast of Persian gulf, S marine forces broke through Kuwait-Iraq border in the north; the main thrust came from far behind on desert where US-Anglo-French armored columns swept around the flank of the Iraqi army and turned eastward through southern Iraq towards the city of Basra. The Iraqi unit in Kuwait was thus trapped in. The republican guards near Kuwait-Iraq border were completely extinguished by the allied tanks and air force. Within three days Iraq?s main massive army eased to exist surrendering more than 100,000 and over tens of thousands more were fleeing homeward. The allied force achieved what they wanted and President Bush declared a ceasefire just 100 hours after the ground offensive had begun. The Iraqi government conceded defeat by announcing its acceptance to abide by all twelve UN resolutions. The war came to an end, at least temporarily. Two important things clearly emerged from the experience of the second gulf war. � America not only achieved astounding victory, but also became the supreme leader in a world of ?new order?. � But most important fact is that during Gulf war UN emerged as most effective body and possessed of the will to back up its resolutions with force, if needed. In retrospect, USA might be thinking that in making what Saddam was during the second gulf war its contribution was no less. Throughout 1980 US policy had been to assist Iraq in its war against Iran and permitted export of not only conventional and sophisticated weapons but also strategic materials to Saddam despite his dictatorial ambition. USA, more particularly its President, the senior Bush what failed to achieve was unseating Saddam from power. It is now alleged that on the advice of General Collin Powel, chairman of the US joint Chefs of Staff, Bush decided not to press on to Baghdad or to destroy all Iraq?s Republican Guards units, obviously not to create power vacuum in the region keeping Iran in mind. Undaunted Saddam took advantage of the ceasefire to focus his activities in the internal affairs. He proceeded to crush rebellious Kurds in the north and Shiite dissidents in the south with ruthless ferocity. Initially US response was of restrain because of interests of Turkey, which also did the same thing to check Kurdish movement within its territory. So far suppression of Shiite Moslems in the south, president was perhaps restrained by the fear that Iran?s Mullah regime might try to expand its Islamic revolution in Iraq. Iran-phobia was always an important element in the Middle East policy of USA. When however Saddam?s actions were becoming menace to the US interest, it enforced no-fly zones to stop Iraqi attacks on civilians. This brought in long drawn Fly-Zone War which ultimately culminated into Operation Desert Fox in 1998. One thing is however clear that American policy clearly meant to uphold Iraqi unity so as to preserve the regional balance of power. Following were the important UN resolutions in connection Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. � Resolution 660 ? August 2, 1990 : Condemns the invasion of Kuwait, demands Iraq?s unconditional, immediate withdrawal and calls on both countries to begin negotiations. � Resolution 661 ? August 6, 1990 : Imposes a trade and financial embargo on Iraq and occupied Kuwait. Establishes a special sanctions committee to implement the resolution and calls upon UN members to protect the assets of Kuwait around the world. � Resolution 687 ? August April 3, 1991 : Formally ends the 1991 Persian Gulf War and authorizes the inspection and elimination of Iraq?s suspected weapons of mass destruction. � Resolution 986 ? April 14, 1995 : Approves sale of Iraqi oil for food and humanitarian relief. � Resolution 1134 & Resolution 1115 ? October 23 and June 21, 1997: Demand that Iraq cooperates fully with the inspections regime. � Resolution 1137 ? November 12, 1997: Approves travel sanctions against senior Iraqi officials. Fly-Zone-War:
Long drawn US-Iraq conflict Fly Zone War is in fact the legacy of inconclusive Operation Desert Storm, which was not carried to its final goal i.e. total defeat of Saddam. The US administration on the one hand had kept subdued Saddam in power with his reduced status in the eye of Arabs, on the other hand it wanted to keep unity of Iraq as a possible threat to both Iran and Turkey too. The US policy was to maintain balance of power in the region. They want to keep Kurdish people in northern region under restrain from total break-way from Iraq in order to keep Turkey in good humour, on the other hand US want to keep Shia rebellion under control to put a check on the Iranians to use this Shiite Movement to be exploited by the Mullah regime of Iran. This they thought would be achievable if Saddam is kept in power under US control & supervision. The double-faced diplomacy of US administration was the root of continued US Iraqi conflict since the ceasefire and deepening the present crisis that finally led to third Persian Gulf War. Learning from the past, this time Junior Bush did not stop till the occupation of Baghdad synonymous to elimination of Saddam regime.
Since the ceasefire there was a lull only for a brief period, but tension and conflict between US led coalition force (USA, UK, and France) flared up time to time until it took serious turn when the coalition force was bound to go for intense ?Desert Fox? bombing campaign in 1998. The roots of the continued conflicts between the Iraqi authorities and the coalition force, according to the political analysts, is hidden in the vague and inconclusive ceasefire agreement ending the second Gulf war (1990-91). The agreement called upon the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq (Resolution 687 ? August April 3, 1991), and more importantly to create two ?No-Fly-Zones?, one in the northern, another in the southern Iraq. The original intent of these zones was to protect rebellious Kurds in the north and Shia Moslems in the south. This gave allied force to fly warplanes over these regions to prevent Iraqi government from using military aircraft to attack the Kurds and the Shiite Moslems. But soon the allied forces frequently began using the zones as a means to force Iraq obeying UN resolutions and coalition demands, more particularly related to UN inspectors for Weapons Of Mass Destruction (WOMD). As the tension between US government and that of Iraq was escalating, following September 11 Event (2001) US administration openly expressed its two concerns over Iraq. Firstly, Iraq was not complying with UN resolutions, and not honouring 1991 ceasefire agreement as the Iraqi authority no longer allowing UN weapons inspectors to look for WOMD since 1998 when it barred the UN inspectors from Iraq. This action of Iraq prompted US-UK air strikes (the Operation Desert Fox). Bush (junior) was, with not much material proof, convinced, nay obsessed with idea that Saddam is fabricating WOMDs and would be used against USA, and America?s allies in the Middle East including Israel and Saudi Arabia in any future war in the region. Secondly, Bush administration is afraid off Iraqi support for international terrorism, a phobia USA is suffering from since September 11. Bush (junior) administration was convinced that September 11 assault on twin towers had, if not direct, but indirect support of Saddam regime and its involvement. This allegation however until now found baseless, so also alleged Iraqi government?s link with terrorist groups of Bin Laden. But in any case these two concerns of America were being constantly used to prepare a ground for all out war against Iraq. Operation
Desert Fox Since the ceasefire, periodically this ?cold war? erupts into open warfare, as the Iraqi authority defies the UN and US prompting military responses. Over the years a series of operations under different name such as operation southern watch (August 2, 1992 ? January 13, 1993, operation desert strike (September 3 & 4, 1996) and operation desert fox (December 16 ? 20, 1998), the last one being the most important and most effective, were conducted by the allied forces. There were also nameless series of operation conducted by the coalition from January 17 ? June 27, 1993 and again in the period from December 29 & 30, 1998 to beginning of 3rd Persian Gulf. The main cases of this continued conflicts between the coalition & UN on the one hand and Iraqi government on the other hand is the mutual disbelief and pointed allegations against each other. Disagreement also exits in the view point- over the extent and need for continued UN inspections. UN and the Coalition alleged that Iraq is not living up to the terms of the agreement and are still engaged developing WOMDs, which Iraq flatly and emphatically denies. Iraq further complains that the US backed coalition is violating its sovereignty and through severe economic sanction crippling its economy. On many occasion Saddam regime attempted to evict the UN inspectors from Iraq to which coalition, backed by UN, responded with threats and occasional bomb and missile onslaught. Another point of irritation on the part of the Iraqi government was the continuation of the no-fly-zones for indefinite period. Originally carved out two geographical zones one in the north and another in the south to protect the rebellious Kurds in north and oppressed Shiites in the south were forbidden zone in which Iraqi aircrafts were not allowed to fly. The coalition force time to time enforced these zones by shooting down Iraqi plane and attacking Iraqi air defence missile batteries on the ground. The situation became very tensed as in December 1998, the Saddam government evicted the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors, the organization that conducts the weapons inspection in Iraq, accusing them of spying for the CIA, not very much unlikely too. As a retaliation measure, the coalition force unleashed ?Operation Desert Fox (December 16 ? 20, 1998) on Iraq. The allied forces? warplanes and cruise missiles bombed on Iraqi targets for five days. The coalition force attacked suspected production-sites of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and hit targets of airfield, military command centres, missile factories, and oil refinery. Other targets included Republican Guard headquarters and bases. President Saddam responded by declaring that Iraq no more recognized no-fly-zones, and would actively contest the coalition for control of all Iraqi airspace. Saddam further declared formal end to all UNSCOM inspections. This resulted almost continued armed conflicts in the skies over Iraq as air-defence missiles batteries attempt to shoot down American and British warplanes to which the Allied forces provided befitting answer by neutralizing those missiles and striking Iraqi targets of their choice with fierce intensity. According to New York Times in an article (August 13, 1999) the coalition force had intensified continued attack on Iraqi targets. Sine the beginning of 1999 over 8 months the allied force sent 1,100 missiles on 359 Iraqi targets. By all accounts, Iraqi forces continued to target their radar and fired missiles at allied warplanes. It was only a matter of time then that a full-scale war was bound to come by. Causalities
and Consequences of No-Fly-Zone War The estimated cost of this (no-fly-zone) war to US and British taxpayers is around one billion dollars per year. As of August 1999, more than 200 military planes, 19 naval ships and 22,000 US military personnel were committed to enforcing no-fly-zones and restraining Iraq. According to Iraq government?s estimate, Iraq suffered several dozen military casualties resulting from air and missile attacks during the period of no-fly-zone war. It is said that death rate for small children doubled in Iraq over the past decade. The deaths are attributed to the continuing conflict between Iraq and the coalition and economic embargo imposed by the UN plus Saddam?s arrogant unwillingness to live up to the 1991 ceasefire agreement. Civilian deaths due to sanctions would exceed thousands. Iraqi source reported that Operation Desert Fox alone killed thousands of people in Iraq. � In effect the gulf war of 1990-91 never ended, merely it was turned into a type of cold war, with lots of threats, yelling and rhetoric interspersed with periods of violence. Since December 1998 the conflict of no-fly-zone markedly escalated. � It appeared to me that escalation of no-fly-zone war was a preparation for the beginning of the Third Persian Gulf : ?Operation Iraqi Freedom?, which was switched on 19th March, 2003 � The post ceasefire fly-zone-war conflict created continued tension in the Gulf region thus causing disrupting the worldwide oil markets. In historical terms, no-fly-zone war may be considered to have ended on 19th March, 2003 when ?Operation Iraqi Freedom? began and this conflict converted itself into the larger war. All three of coalition wars with Iraq the Gulf war (1990-91), No-Fly-Zone War (1991-2003(), and the Gulf war (2003) are really one single long drawn war. � The enforcing of no-fly-zones was causing continued drain on the military resources of USA and other allied partners including UK and France. Increasing criticism building up among the common Arabs of the Gulf Sheikhs and Saudi monarchs who were allowing their soils to be used by the allied force. � The most sufferers were however Iraqi common people. The nation?s infrastructure totally collapsed and thousands of children died as the poorer elements of the society were hit by the UN embargo. |
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
||||
