2003 invasion of Iraq
201936
225662135
2008-07-14T20:02:59Z
67.160.202.141
/* External links */ changed Iraqi's to Iraqis in the second external link
{{Otheruses4|the 2003 invasion of Iraq|events after [[May 1]], [[2003]]|Iraq War}}
{{Infobox Military Conflict
| campaign=War on Terror
|<ref name="GlobalKansas">{{cite news|title=President Discusses Global War on Terror at Kansas State University |publisher=Whitehouse |date=[[2006-01-23]] |url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060123-4.html}}</ref>
| image=[[Image:101st Airborne Division helos during Operation Iraqi Freedom.jpg|283px]]
| caption=<small>Black Hawk Helicopters from the 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) move into Iraq during the opening stages of the 2003 invasion<small>
| date=[[March 19]], [[2003]] – [[May 1]], [[2003]]|place=[[Iraq]]
| casus=The official sole trigger for the invasion was the U.S. government's determination that Iraq had failed to disarm and was a threat to the world.|result=Coalition victory; [[Saddam Hussein]] and [[Baath Party]] toppled; establishment of new [[Government of Iraq from 2006|government]]; [[Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006|occupation]]; [[Iraqi insurgency|insurgency]] and [[Sectarian violence in Iraq|sectarian violence]].<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13684759/ |title = Sectarian divisions change Baghdad’s image |publisher = [[Associated Press]] |date = [[2006-07-03]]|accessdate = 2006-08-06}}</ref>
| combatant1=[[Image:MultinationalForce-IraqDUI.jpg|22px]] [[Multinational force in Iraq|Coalition Forces]]:<br />
{{flag|United States}}<br /> {{flag|United Kingdom}}<br /> {{flag|Australia}}<br /> {{flag|Poland}}<br /> {{Flagicon|Kurdistan}} [[Peshmerga]]<br />
| combatant2={{flag|Iraq|1991}}<br />
| commander1={{flagicon|United States}} [[George W. Bush]]
{{flagicon|United States}} [[Tommy Franks]]
{{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[Mike Jackson]]{{Fact|date=June 2008}}
{{flagicon|Poland}} [[Aleksander Kwaśniewski]]
----{{Flagicon|Kurdistan}} [[Massoud Barzani]]
{{Flagicon|Iraq|1991}} [[Ahmed Chalabi]]
| commander2=
{{flagicon|Iraq|1991}} [[Saddam Hussein]]†
{{flagicon|Iraq|1991}} [[Qusay Hussein]]†
{{flagicon|Iraq|1991}} [[Uday Hussein]]†
{{flagicon|Iraq|1991}} [[Ali Hassan al-Majid]]
{{flagicon|Iraq|1991}} [[Barzan Ibrahim]]
{{flagicon|Iraq|1991}} [[Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri]]
{{flagicon|Iraq|1991}} [[Tariq Aziz]]
| strength1= 263,000
| strength2= 375,000
| casualties1= 190 [[Killed in action|KIA]] (140 US, 17 Kurds, 33 UK)<ref name="icasualties">iCasualties.org (was lunaville.org). Benicia, California. Patricia Kneisler, ''et al.'', [http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx "Iraq Coalition Casualties"].</ref>
542 [[Wounded in action|WIA]]<ref>[http://icasualties.org/oif/woundedchart.aspx US Wounded Chart<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
| casualties2=Estimated [[Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003#Iraqi invasion casualties|Iraqi combatant fatalities]]:
30,000 (figure attributed to General Tommy Franks)<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040419-secdef1362.html "Secretary of Defense Interview with Bob Woodward - 23 Oct, 2003"]. United States Department of Defense: News Transcript. [[April 19]], [[2004]].</ref>
7,600–10,800 (Project on Defense Alternatives study)<ref name="pda"> [http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/1028-01.htm "New Study Finds: 11,000 to 15,000 Killed in Iraq War; 30 Percent are Non-combatants"]. Project on Defense Alternatives. Press release. Oct. 20, 2003.</ref>
13,500–45,000 (extrapolated from fatality rates in units serving around Baghdad)<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,965235,00.html "Body counts"]. By Jonathan Steele. ''[[The Guardian]]''. [[May 28]], [[2003]].</ref>|casualties3= Estimated [[Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003#Iraqi invasion casualties|Iraqi civilian fatalities]]:
7,299 (Iraq Body Count)<ref name="IBC">[http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Iraq Body Count project]. Source of IBC quote on undercounting by media is [http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/year-four/ here].</ref>
3,200–4,300 (Project on Defense Alternatives study)<ref name="pda" />}}
{{Campaignbox Iraq War}}
{{Campaignbox Persian Gulf Wars}}
The '''2003 invasion of Iraq''', from [[March 19]] to [[May 1]], [[2003]], was spearheaded by the [[United States]], backed by [[United Kingdom|British]] forces and smaller contingents from [[Australia]], [[Poland]] and [[Denmark]]. [[multinational force in Iraq|A number of other countries]]<!--Give the actual number instead of saying "a number." Was it 3, 4, 5? How many?--> were involved in its aftermath. The [[invasion]] marked the beginning of the current [[Iraq War]].
According to the [[President of the United States]] [[George W. Bush]] and [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]] [[Tony Blair]], the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm [[Iraq]] of [[weapons of mass destruction]] (WMD), to end [[Saddam Hussein]]'s [[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda|support for terrorism]], and to free the Iraqi people."<ref name="beginning1" /> Blair said the actual trigger was Iraq's failure to take a "final opportunity" to disarm itself of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and coalition officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html President Bush Meets with Prime Minister Blair<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> In a January 2003 CBS poll, 64% of Americans approved of military action against Iraq. 63% wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution rather than going to war with Iraq, and 62% believed the threat of terror would increase if war was waged with Iraq.<ref name = "CBSnews-20030124">[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/23/opinion/polls/main537739.shtml "Poll: Talk First, Fight Later"]. ''CBS.com'', Jan. 24, 2003. Retrieved on April 23, 2007.</ref>
== Overview ==
Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or [[sarin]] [[nerve agent]]. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are still believed to exist. Although some misplaced or abandoned remnants of pre-1991 production were found, U.S. government spokespeople confirmed that these were not the weapons for which the U.S. went to war.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html "Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq"], FOXNews.com, June 22, 2006</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf Fax and report], June 21, 2006</ref>
The invasion of Iraq was strongly opposed by some traditional U.S. allies, including [[France]] and [[Germany]]. Their leaders argued that there was no evidence of WMD and that invading Iraq was not justified in the context of [[UNMOVIC]]'s [[February 12]], [[2003]] report. On February 15, 2003, a month before the invasion, there were many worldwide [[protests against the Iraq war]], including a rally of 3 million people in [[Rome]], which is listed in the [[Guinness Book of Records]] as the largest ever anti-war rally.<ref name="Guinness">{{cite web
| url = http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54365
| title = Guinness World Records, Largest Anti-War Rally
| accessdate = 2007-01-11
| publisher = Guinness World Records
| language = English
| archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20040904214302/http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54365
| archivedate = 2004-09-04
}}</ref> According to the [[France|French]] academic [[Dominique Reynié]], between [[January 3]] and [[April 12]], [[2003]], 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.<ref name="Socialist Worker J3 to A12">{{cite news
| first = Alex
| last = Callinicos
| title = Anti-war protests do make a difference
| url = http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=6067
| publisher = [[Socialist Worker]]
| date = [[March 19]], [[2005]]
| accessdate = 2007-01-11
| language = English
}}</ref>
In preparation for the invasion, 100,000 U.S. troops were assembled in Kuwait by [[February 18]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.deployment/index.html|title=U.S. has 100,000 troops in Kuwait}}</ref> The United States supplied the vast majority of the invading forces, but also received support from [[Kurdistan (Iraq)|Kurdish]] troops in northern Iraq.
==Prelude to the invasion==
[[Image:Saddam rumsfeld.jpg|thumb|right|[[Donald Rumsfeld]], at the time [[Ronald Reagan]]'s special envoy to the [[Middle East]], meeting with [[Saddam Hussein]] during a visit to [[Baghdad]], in December 1983, during the [[Iran-Iraq War]]. In later years, this image would come to symbolize diplomatic efforts between the two countries (Video frame capture; see the [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ complete video here].)]]
After the invasion of the [[Gulf War]] of 1991, the U.S., and the international community maintained a policy of “[[containment]]” towards Iraq. This policy involved numerous and crushing [[Iraq sanctions|economic sanctions]], U.S. and UK patrols of [[Iraqi no-fly zones]] declared to protect Kurds in northern Iraq and Shias in the south, and ongoing inspections to prevent Iraqi development of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Iraqi military helicopters and planes regularly contested the no-fly zones.<ref name = "CNN-20060525">{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9901/04/iraq.no.fly/|title=Iraq tests no-fly zone|date=[[January 4]], [[1999]]|publisher=CNN.com|accessdate=2006-05-25}}</ref><ref name = "CNN-20021128">{{cite news|url=http://cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/28/sproject.irq.nofly.zone/index.html|title=Coalition planes hit Iraq sites in no-fly zone|date=[[November 28]], [[2002]]|publisher=CNN.com|accessdate=2006-05-25}}</ref>
In October 1998, U.S. policy began to shift away from containment and towards “regime change,” as the U.S. Congress passed and President [[Bill Clinton]] signed the "[[Iraq Liberation Act]]." Signed in response to Iraq's termination of its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August, the act provided $97 million for Iraqi "democratic opposition organizations" to "establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:|title=Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)|publisher=Library of Congress|accessdate=2006-05-25}}</ref> This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 687]],which focused on weapons and weapons programs and made no mention of regime change.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm|title= RESOLUTION 687 (1991)|accessdate=2006-05-25|date=[[April 8]], [[1991]]}}</ref> One month after the passage of the “Iraq Liberation Act,” the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called [[Operation Desert Fox]]. The campaign’s express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government’s ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also hoped it would help weaken Hussein’s grip on power.<ref>Arkin, William. “The Difference Was in the Details”. ''The Washington Post'', January 17, 1999; Page B1. Retrieved from [http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/irqtar.htm] on April 23, 2007.</ref>
With the election of George W. Bush as U.S. President in 2000, the U.S. moved towards a more active policy of “regime change” in Iraq.
The [[United States Republican Party|Republican Party's]] campaign platform in the [[U.S. presidential election, 2000|2000 election]] called for "full implementation" of the [[Iraq Liberation Act]] and removal of Saddam Hussein, and key Bush advisors, including Vice President [[Dick Cheney]], Defense Secretary [[Donald Rumsfeld]], and Rumsfeld’s Deputy [[Paul Wolfowitz]], were longstanding advocates of invading Iraq.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/|title=REPUBLICAN PLATFORM 2000|publisher=CNN.com|accessdate=2006-05-25}}</ref>After leaving the administration, former Bush treasury secretary [[Paul O'Neill]] said that an attack on Iraq had been planned since the inauguration, and that the first [[National Security Council]] meeting involved discussion of an invasion. O'Neill later backtracked, saying that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/|title=O'Neill: 'Frenzy' distorted war plans account|date=[[January 14]], [[2004]]|publisher=CNN.com|accessdate=2006-05-26}}</ref>
Despite the Bush Administration’s stated interest in liberating Iraq, little formal movement towards an invasion occurred until the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]. According to aides who were with Defense Secretary [[Donald Rumsfeld]] in the National Military Command Center on September 11, Rumsfeld asked for: "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit [[Saddam Hussein]] at same time. Not only [[Osama bin Laden]]." The notes also quote him as saying, "Go massive", and "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml|title= Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11|publisher=CBS News|date=2002-09-04|accessdate=2006-05-26}}</ref> The rationale for invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 has been widely questioned, as no direct cooperation between [[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda|Iraq and al-Qaeda]] was known prior to 9/11 and subsequent intelligence has uncovered none.<ref>Smith, Jeffrey R. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html “Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted”]. The Washington Post, Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A01. Retrieved on April 23, 2007.</ref>
Shortly after September 11, 2001 (on September 20), President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress (which was simulcasted live to the world), and announced the new [[War on Terrorism]]. This announcement was accompanied by the widely criticized doctrine of 'pre-emptive' military action, later termed the [[Bush Doctrine|Bush doctrine]]. Some Bush advisers favored an immediate invasion of Iraq, while others advocated building an international coalition and obtaining United Nations authorization. Bush eventually decided to seek U.N. authorization, while still holding out the possibility of invading unilaterally.<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html "Chronology of the Bush Doctrine"]. ''[[Frontline (tv program)|Frontline.org]]''. Retrieved on April 23, 2007.</ref>
While there had been some earlier talk of action against Iraq, the Bush administration waited until September 2002 to call for action, with [[White House Chief of Staff]] [[Andrew Card]] saying, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/schneider.iraq/|title=Marketing Iraq: Why now?|author=William Schneider|accessdate=2006-09-04}}</ref> Bush began formally making his case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq in his September 12, 2002 address to the U.N. Security Council.<ref>[[George W. Bush]], [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html "President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly:] Remarks by the President in Address to the United Nations General Assembly, New York, New York", official transcript, press release, ''[[The White House]]'', [[September 12]], [[2002]], accessed [[May 24]], [[2007]].</ref> Key U.S. allies in the [[NATO]] allies, including France and Germany, were critical of plans to invade Iraq, arguing instead for continued diplomacy and weapons inspections. After considerable debate, the [[United Nations actions regarding Iraq|U.N. Security Council]] adopted a compromise resolution, [[UN Security Council Resolution 1441|1441]], which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections and promised "serious consequences" for noncompliance. Security Council members France and Russia made clear that they did not believe these consequences to include the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi government.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2364203.stm "France threatens rival UN Iraq draft"]. ''[[BBC News]]'', October 26, 2002. Retrieved on April 23, 2007</ref>
Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, [[John Negroponte]], and the UK ambassador [[Jeremy Greenstock]] publicly confirmed this reading of the resolution, assuring that Resolution 1441 provided no "automaticity" or "hidden triggers" for an invasion without further consultation of the Security Council.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://manila.usembassy.gov/wwwhira3.html|title=U.S. Wants Peaceful Disarmament of Iraq, Says Negroponte|date=[[November 8]], [[2002]]|publisher=Embassy of the United States in Manila|accessdate=2006-05-26}}</ref>
Paralleling its efforts in the U.N., the Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion, which it was granted on October 2002 when the U.S. Congress passed a "[[Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq]]". While the resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, Americans polled in January 2003 widely favored further diplomacy over an invasion. Later that year, however, Americans began to agree with Bush's plan. Americans overwhelmingly believed Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction: 85% said so, even though the inspectors hadn't uncovered those weapons yet. Of those who thought Iraq had weapons stashed somewhere, about half were pessimistic that they’d ever turn up. By February 2003, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.<ref name = "CBSnews-20030124"/>
In February 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations General Assembly, continuing U.S. efforts to gain U.N. authorization for an invasion. Powell presented evidence alleging that Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons and had ties to [[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda|al-Qaeda]], claims that have since been widely discredited. As a follow-up to Powell’s presentation, the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a UN Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but NATO members like Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the U.S., UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.<ref>{{cite news |title = US, Britain and Spain Abandon Resolution |url = http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/armtwist/2003/0317usbritspain.htm
| publisher = [[Associated Press]] |date = [[2003-03-17]] |accessdate = 2006-08-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/06/sprj.irq.main/index.html
| title = Bush: Iraq is playing 'willful charade' |publisher = CNN |date = [[2003-03-07]]|accessdate = 2006-08-06}}</ref>
[[Image:Prewar-meeting.jpg|thumb|200px|left|U.S. President George Bush meets with his top advisors on March 19, 2003 just before the invasion begins.]]
With the failure of its resolution, the U.S. and their supporters abandoned the Security Council procedures and decided to pursue the invasion without U.N. authorization, a decision of questionable legality under international law.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030318/debtext/30318-06.htm#30318-06_head1|work=House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Mar 2003 (pt 6)|title=Iraq|accessdate=2006-05-25}}</ref> This decision was widely unpopular worldwide, and opposition to the invasion coalesced on February 15 in a worldwide [[February 15, 2003 anti-war protest|anti-war protest]] that attracted big between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the [[Guinness Book of World Records]].<ref name="Largest">
[http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=54365 Largest anti-war rally], Guinness Book of World Records, 2004</ref>
In March 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, and Italy began [[preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq|preparing for the invasion of Iraq]], with a host of [[public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq|public relations]], and military moves. In his [[March 17]], [[2003]] address to the nation, Bush demanded that Hussein and his two sons [[Uday Hussein|Uday]] and [[Qusay Hussein|Qusay]] surrender and leave [[Iraq]], giving them a 48-hour deadline.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030317-10.html|title=Global Message|publisher=Whitehouse.gov|accessdate=2006-06-07}}</ref> But Bush actually began the bombing of Iraq on March 18, the day before his deadline expired. On [[March 18]], [[2003]], the bombing of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Australia, and Denmark began, without UN support, unlike the first Gulf War or the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)|invasion of Afghanistan]].
==Failed peace==
In December 2002, a representative of the head of Iraqi Intelligence, Gen. Tahir Jalil Habbush al Takriti, contacted former CIA counterterrorism head Vincent Cannistraro, stating that Saddam "knew there was a campaign to link him to September 11 and prove he had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)." Cannistrano further added that "the Iraqis were prepared to satisfy these concerns. I reported the conversation to senior levels of the state department and I was told to stand aside and they would handle it." Cannistrano stated that the offers made were all "killed" by the Bush administration because they allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power - an outcome viewed as unacceptable. It has been suggested that Saddam Hussein was prepared to go into exile if allowed to keep $1 billion USD.<ref name="WaPo">
{{cite web
| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092601024.html
| title=Bush thought Saddam was prepared to flee: report
| author=Jason Webb
| publisher=[[Reuters]], [[Washington Post]]
| date= [[September 26]], [[2007]]
| accessdate=2007-09-27
}}</ref>
Shortly after, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's national security advisor, Osama al Baz, sent a message to the U.S. State Department that the Iraqis wanted to discuss the accusations that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties with al-Qaeda. Iraq also attempted to reach the US through the Syrian, French, German, and Russian intelligence services. Nothing came of the attempts.
In January 2003, Lebanese-American Imad Hage met with Michael Maloof of the DoD's Office of Special Plans. Hage, a resident of Beirut, had been recruited by the department to assist in the War on Terrorism. He reported that Mohammed Nassif, a close aide to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, had expressed frustrations about the difficulties of Syria contacting the United States, and had attempted to use him as an intermediary. Maloof arranged for Hage to meet with civilian Richard Perle, then head of the [[Defense Policy Board]].
In February 2003, Hage met with the chief of Iraqi intelligence's foreign operations, Hassan al-Obeidi. Obeidi told Hage that Baghdad didn't understand why they were being targeted, and that they had no WMDs; he then made the offer for Washington to send in 2000 FBI agents to ascertain this. He additionally offered oil concessions, but stopped short of having Hussein give up power, instead suggesting that elections could be held in two years. Later, Obeidi suggested that Hage travel to Baghdad for talks; he accepted.
Later that month, Hage met with Gen. Habbush in addition to Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. He was offered top priority to US firms in oil and mining rights, UN-supervised elections, US inspections (with up to 5,000 inspectors), to have al-Qaeda agent Abdul Rahman Yasin (in Iraqi custody since 1994) handed over as a sign of good faith, and to give "full support for any US plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process. They also wished to meet with high-ranking US officials. On [[February 19]], Hage faxed Maloof his report of the trip. Maloof reports having brought the proposal to Jamie Duran. The Pentagon denies that either Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld, Duran's bosses, were aware of the plan.
On February 21, Maloof informed Duran in an email that Richard Perle wished to meet with Hage and the Iraqis if the Pentagon would clear it. Duran responded "Mike, working this. Keep this close hold." On [[March 7]], Perle met with Hage in Knightsbridge, and stated that he wanted to pursue the matter further with people in Washington (both have acknowledged the meeting). A few days later, he informed Hage that Washington refused to let him meet with Habbush to discuss the offer (Hage stated that Perle's response was "that the consensus in Washington was it was a no-go"). Perle told ''The Times'', "The message was 'Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad."
==[[Casus belli]] and rationale==
{{Cleanup-section|date=March 2008}}
{{main|Rationale for the Iraq War}}
George Bush and Tony Blair were explicit that the decision to invade Iraq rested on what Bush called a "single question".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html|title=News Release|Publisher=White House}}</ref> This was the allegation that Iraq possessed [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]], including [[nuclear weapons]]<ref>{{cite news|author=Wolf Blitzer|url= http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/wbr.iraq.claims/|title=Did the Bush Administration exaggerate the threat from Iraq?|publisher=CNN|date=2003-07-08}} </ref>, which it had to abandon.
George Bush, speaking in October 2002, said that “The stated policy of the United States is regime change… However, if [[Saddam Hussein|Hussein]] were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I have described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed”.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-10-2002_pg4_1|author=Bob Kemper|title=Saddam can keep rule if he complies: Bush|publisher=Daily Times: date=2002-10-23}}</ref> Similarly, in September 2002, Tony Blair stated, in an answer to a parliamentary question, that “Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction…”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020924/debtext/20924-05.htm|title=Tony Blair: Answer to Parliamentary Question|publisher=Hansard}}</ref> In November of that year, Tony Blair further stated that “So far as our objective, it is disarmament, not régime change - that is our objective. Now I happen to believe the regime of Saddam is a very brutal and repressive regime, I think it does enormous damage to the Iraqi people... so I have got no doubt Saddam is very bad for Iraq, but on the other hand I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change.”<ref>{{cite web|title=PM gives interview to Radio Monte Carlo|url=http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1299.asp}}</ref> At a press conference on January 31st 2003, George Bush again reiterated that the single trigger for the invasion would be Iraq’s failure to disarm: “Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm, for the sake of peace, we, along with others, will go disarm Saddam Hussein.”<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/31/sprj.irq.bush.blair.topics/|title=Bush, Blair: Time running out for Saddam|Publisher=CNN}}</ref> As late as [[February 25]], [[2003]], it was still the official line that the only cause of invasion would be a failure to disarm. As Tony Blair made clear in a statement to the House of Commons: “I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3088.asp|title=Tony Blair: Parliamentary Statement|Publisher=Hansard}}</ref>
Additional justifications used at various times included Iraqi violation of UN resolutions, Saddam's repression of Iraqis and Iraqi violations of the 1991 cease-fire<ref name="beginning1">{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html|title=President Discusses Beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom}}</ref>
The main allegations were that [[Saddam Hussein]] was in possession of, or was attempting to produce, [[Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|weapons of mass destruction]]; and that he had ties to [[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda|terrorists]], specifically al-Qaeda. Moreover, it has also been alleged by some commentators that, while it never made an explicit connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration did repeatedly insinuate a link, thereby creating a false impression for the American public. For example, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' has noted that
<blockquote>
While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."<ref>Dana Milbank|"Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship" Washington Post|June 18, 2004; Page A09|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html|Retrieved 22/10/07</ref>
</blockquote>
Steven Kull, director of the [[Program on International Policy Attitudes]] (PIPA) at the [[University of Maryland, College Park|University of Maryland]], observed in March 2003 that "The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]". This was following a ''[[New York Times]]''/[[CBS]] poll that showed 45% of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the September 11 atrocities. As the ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'' observed at the time, while "Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda... the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime." The CSM went on to report that, while polling data collected "right after Sept. 11, 2001" showed that only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein, by January 2003 attitudes "had been transformed" with a Knight Ridder poll showing that 44% of Americans believed "most" or "some" of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens.<ref>Linda Feldmann|The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq|Christian Science Monitor|March 14, 2003|http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html|Retrieved 22/10/07</ref>
The [[BBC]] has also noted that while President Bush "never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington", he "repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September", adding that "Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two." For instance, the BBC report quotes [[Colin Powell]] in February 2003, stating that "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America." The same BBC report, from September 2003, also noted the results of a recent opinion poll, which suggested that "70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks."<ref>BBC News Online|"Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link"|Thursday, 18 September, 2003|news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm|Retrieved 22/10/07</ref> Also in September 2003, the Boston Globe reported that "Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks."<ref>Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender|"Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged"|16/9/2003|http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/|Retrieved 22/10/07</ref> A year later, Presidential candidate John Kerry alleged that Cheney was continuing "to intentionally mislead the American public by drawing a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in an attempt to make the invasion of Iraq part of the global war on terror."<ref>"Kerry challenges Bush on Iraq-9/11 connection"|CNN|12/9/04|http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/kerry.powell.iraq/index.html|Retrieved 22/10/07</ref>
Throughout 2002, the Bush administration made clear that removing Saddam Hussein from power in order to restore international peace and security was a major goal. The principal stated justifications for this policy of "regime change" were that Iraq's
[[Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|continuing production of weapons of mass destruction]] and [[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda|known ties to terrorist organizations]], as well as Iraq's continued violations of UN Security Council resolutions, amounted to a threat to the U.S. and the world community.
[[Image:Powell-anthrax-vial.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[Colin Powell]] holding a model vial of [[anthrax]] while giving presentation to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 (still photograph captured from video clip, The White House/CNN)]]
The Bush administration's overall rationale for the invasion of Iraq was presented in detail by [[Secretary of State]] [[Colin Powell]] to the [[United Nations Security Council]] on [[February 5]], [[2003]]; in summary, he stated: {{cquote|<blockquote>We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression... given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-[[September 11]] world.<ref name="CNNtranscript">[http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/index.html "Transcript of Powell's U.N. Presentation:]... a Transcript of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's Presentation to the U.N. Security Council on the U.S. Case Against Iraq". ''[[CNN News|cnn.com]]'', [[February 6]], [[2003]], accessed [[May 24]], [[2007]]. (Part 5 on "Iraq's Biological Weapons Program" inc. still photo of Powell with sample anthrax vial from Powell's presentation of [[February 5]], [[2003]].) Cf.[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.v.html Press release] and [[The White House]] video clip of full presentation, [[February 5]], [[2003]], accessed [[May 24]], [[2007]].</ref></blockquote>}}
Since the invasion, U.S. and British claims concerning [[Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|Iraqi weapons programs]] and [[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda|links to terrorist organizations]] have been discredited. While the debate of whether Iraq intended to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the future remains open, no [[WMDs]] have been found in Iraq since the invasion despite comprehensive inspections lasting more than 18 months.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/"CIA’s|title=final report: No WMD found in Iraq".] ''MSNBC.com'', April 25, 2005. Retrieved on April 5, 2007|last=Press|first=Associated}}</ref> In Cairo, on February 24th 2001, Colin Powell had predicted as much, saying "He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."<ref>{{cite news|author=Australian Associated Press|url= http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082978207.html|title=Pilger claims White House knew Saddam was no threat.|publisher=Sydney Morning Herald|date=2003-09-23}} </ref> Similarly, assertions of significant operational links{{Fact|date=January 2008}} between Iraq and al Qaeda have largely been discredited by the intelligence community, and Secretary Powell himself eventually admitted he had no incontrovertible proof.<ref>{{cite news|author=Marquis, Christopher|url= http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/09POWE.html?ex=1388984400&en=6bb5457574b8ec1d&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND|title=Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda.|publisher=New York Times|date=2004-01-09}} </ref>
In September 2002, the Bush administration said attempts by Iraq to acquire thousands of high-strength [[Iraqi aluminium tubes|aluminium tubes]] pointed to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. Indeed, [[Colin Powell]], in his address to the U.N. Security Council just prior to the war, made reference to the aluminium tubes. But a report released by the [[Institute for Science and International Security]] in 2002 reported that it was highly unlikely that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium. Powell later admitted he had presented an inaccurate case to the United Nations on Iraqi weapons, based on sourcing that was wrong and in some cases "deliberately misleading."<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36348-2002Sep18 "Evidence on Iraq Challenged,"] Joby Warrick, ''The Washington Post'', Sept. 19, 2002</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html Colin Powell’s speech to the UN,] Feb 5, 2003</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/ Meet the Press,] NBC, May 16, 2004</ref>
Critics of the invasion have also alleged that the U.S. and British governments deliberately fabricated evidence concerning Iraqi weapons programs and links to terrorists. Most notably, opponents of the invasion have accused the Bush Administration of relying on knowingly fraudulent evidence in asserting that the Hussein government had sought to purchase [[Niger uranium forgeries|yellowcake uranium from Niger]].<ref>Lichtblau, Eric. "[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/politics/18niger.html?ex=1295240400&en=e12e8081c771c1c0&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss 2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim"], ''[[The New York Times]]'', [[January 18]], [[2006]]. Retrieved on [[May 10]], [[2007]].</ref> On March 7, 2003, intelligence documents submitted as evidence to the [[International Atomic Energy Agency|IAEA]] were dismissed by the agency as forgeries, with the concurrence of outside experts. At the time, a U.S. official claimed that the evidence was submitted to the IAEA without knowledge of its provenance, and characterized any mistakes as "more likely due to incompetence not malice"; this explanation was deemed unsatisfactory by former CIA official and Iraq War critic [[Ray Close (CIA analyst)|Ray Close]].<ref>{{cite news
| last=Ensor
| first=David
| url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html
| title=Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.
| publisher=CNN.com
| date=2003-03-14
| accessdate=2007-05-10
}}</ref> Those who oppose these critics of the invasion maintain the fraudulent documents were never central--or even relevant--in intelligence assessments regarding Iraq seeking uranium.
Accusations that the invasion was fought on false pretences were thought by some to be strengthened by the 2005 release of the so-called [[Downing Street Memo]], a secret British document summarizing a 2002 meeting among British political, intelligence, and defence leaders. According to the memo, Chief of the [[MI6|British Secret Intelligence Service]] Sir [[Richard Dearlove]] claimed that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."<ref>Pincus, Walter. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html "British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War"]. ''Washington Post'', Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A18. Retrieved on April 5, 2007.</ref> Some supporters of the war, however, claim the Memo simply reveals someone giving voice to an opinion, and does not constitute proof of any facts.
Between September, 2002 and June, 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense [[Paul Wolfowitz]] created a Pentagon unit known as the [[Office of Special Plans]] (OSP), headed by [[Douglas Feith]]. It was created to supply senior Bush administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining to Iraq, unvetted by intelligence analysts, and circumventing traditional intelligence gathering operations by the CIA. One former CIA officer described the OSP as dangerous for U.S. national security and a threat to world peace, and that it lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing [[Saddam Hussein]]. He described it as a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality, taking bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignoring anything contrary.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20030608/ai_n12583062 "Revealed: The Secret Cabal Which Spun for Blair,"] ''Sunday Herald'', Neil Mackay, June 8, 2003</ref>
In October, 2002, a few days before the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]] vote on the [[Legality of the Iraq War#United States|Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution]], about 75 senators were told in [[closed session]] that [[Saddam Hussein]] had the means of delivering [[Biological weapon|biological]] and [[chemical weapons]] of mass destruction by [[unmanned aerial vehicle]] (UAV) drones that could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack [[East Coast of the United States|U.S. eastern seaboard cities]]. [[Colin Powell]] suggested in his presentation to the United Nations that UAVs were transported out of Iraq and could be launched against the U.S. In fact, Iraq had no offensive UAV fleet or any capability of putting UAVs on ships.<ref>Senator [[Bill Nelson]] (January 28, 2004) [http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012804b.html "New Information on Iraq's Possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction",] ''Congressional Record''</ref> Iraq's UAV fleet consisted of less than a handful of outdated Czech training drones.<ref>Lowe, C. (December 16, 2003) [http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000690.html "Senator: White House Warned of UAV Attack,"] ''Defense Tech''</ref> At the time, there was a vigorous dispute within the intelligence community as to whether the CIA's conclusions about Iraq's UAV fleet were accurate. The [[U.S. Air Force]] agency most familiar with UAVs denied outright that Iraq possessed any offensive UAV capability.<ref>Hammond, J. (November 14, 2005) [http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/iraq_uavs.htm "The U.S. 'intelligence failure' and Iraq's UAVs"] ''The Yirmeyahu Review''</ref>
As evidence supporting U.S. and British claims about Iraqi WMDs and links to terrorism weakened, some claim supporters of the invasion have increasingly shifted their justification to the [[Human rights in Saddam's Iraq|human rights violations of the Hussein government]].<ref> [http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-07/30/article04.shtml Senators Slam Shifting Iraq War Justification.] ''Islamonline''. July 30, 2003. </ref> Leading human rights groups such as [[Human Rights Watch]] have argued, however, that they believe human rights concerns were never a central justification for the invasion, nor do they believe that military intervention was justifiable on humanitarian grounds, most significantly because "the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention."<ref> Roth, Ken. [http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm "War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention"] ''Human Rights Watch''. January 2004. Retrieved April 6, 2007. </ref> Many supporters of the war, however, claim from the start human rights concerns were among the reasons given for the invasion, and that the threat of weapons of mass destruction was emphasized at the United Nations, since this dealt with Iraq flouting UN resolutions. They further claim human rights groups that oppose the war have no objective standard regarding when to invade a country.
Notwithstanding the stated justifications for the invasion, critics of the Bush Administration have also argued that the true motives included ensuring U.S. access to Iraqi oil and long term U.S. dominance in the [[Middle East]].<ref>Porter, Adam. [http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=12244 "British lawmaker: Iraq war was for oil"]. Aljazeera.net. May 22, 2005. Retrieved April 5, 2007.</ref> Bush Administration officials have vehemently denied these claims.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/main529569.shtml "Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War"]. CBSNews.com. Nov. 15, 2002. Retrieved on April 5, 2007.</ref> In 2006, the French author [[Jean-François Susbielle]] wrote a book entitled ''[[Chine-USA, la guerre programmée]]'' in which he claimed that the USA invaded Iraq in 2003 in order to control as many major oil fields as possible, thus enabling the US to monitor and determine the extent of China’s access to foreign oil. He believes that various [[neoconservatives]] view [[China]] as a strategic challenge that must be contained. Many supporters of the war counter that other nations made special deals with Iraq to buy its oil, and that if the US were interested primarily in oil it too could have made a deal. This surely would have been an easier route to fulfilling strategic energy objectives than fighting a war. Furthermore, they claim, oil was more instrumental in creating opposition to the war than support for it, since many nations, especially in Europe, wanted to maintain the oil supply they were receiving from Iraq.
The allegation that the Iraq war was mainly about oil has since been supported by the remarks of [[Alan Greenspan]], the recently retired head of the [[US Federal Reserve]]. In media coverage in advance of the publication of his memoirs, Greenspan is reported to have written that,
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."<ref>author=Bob Woodward|title=Greenspan Is Critical Of Bush in Memoir; Former Fed Chairman Has Praise for Clinton|publisher=Washington Post|date=September 16 2007</ref>
The media widely interpreted this as meaning that the [[casus belli]] was the appropriation of Iraqi oil.
When asked to further elaborate, Greenspan said it was clear to him that Saddam Hussein had wanted to control the Straits of Hormuz and so control Middle East oil shipments through the vital route out of the Gulf. He said that had Saddam been able to do that it would have been "devastating to the West" as the former Iraqi president could have forcibly denied the export of 5m barrels a day and brought "the industrial world to its knees."<ref>author=Richard Adams|title=Invasion of Iraq was driven by oil, says Greenspan|publisher=Guardian Unlimited|date=September 17 2007</ref>
==Legality of invasion==
{{main|Legality of the Iraq War}}
With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the [[United States Congress]] passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against [[Iraq Resolution]] of 2002. The resolution asserts the authorization by the [[Constitution of the United States]] and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. Citing the [[Iraq Liberation Act of 1998]], the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President [[George W. Bush]] to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the [[Armed Forces of the United States]] "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant [[United Nations Security Council]] Resolutions regarding Iraq."
The legality of the invasion of Iraq has been unsuccessfully challenged since its inception on a number of fronts, and several prominent supporters of the invasion in all the invading nations have publicly and privately cast doubt on its legality. It is claimed that the invasion was fully legal because authorization was implied by the [[United Nations Security Council]].<ref>[http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htm Saddam Hussein's Defiance of UNSCRs<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/17926.htm UN Security Council Resolution 1441<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> International legal experts, including the [[International Commission of Jurists]], a group of 31 leading Canadian law professors, and the U.S.-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy have denounced both of these rationales.<ref>[http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm Links to Opinions of Legality of War Against Iraq<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htm Law Groups Say U.S. Invasion Illegal<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en International Commission of Jurists<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
On Thursday November 20, 2003, an article published in the Guardian alleged that [[Richard Perle]],
a senior member of the administration's [[Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee]], conceded that the invasion was illegal but still justified.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/20/1069027255087.html|title= Invasion right but 'illegal', says US hawk|first=Oliver|last=Burkeman|publisher=The Age|date=[[November 21]], [[2003]]|accessdate=2006-05-26}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html|publisher=The Guardian|title=War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal|author=Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger|date=[[November 20]], [[2003]]|accessdate=2006-05-26}}</ref>
The United Nations Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 678|678]], passed on November 29, 1990. It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait... to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 660|660]] and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."
Resolution [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 678|678]] has not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions.
Resolution [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441|1441]] was most prominent during the run up to the war and formed the main backdrop for Secretary of State [[Colin Powell|Colin Powell's]] address to the Security Council one month before the invasion.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/index.html Transcript of Powell's U.N. Presentation].[CNN.com]</ref> At the same time, Bush Administration officials advanced a parallel legal argument using the earlier resolutions, which authorized force in response to Iraq's 1991 [[invasion of Kuwait]]. Under this reasoning, by failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of [[U.N. Security Council]] Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq's compliance through military means.
Critics and proponents of the legal rationale based on the U.N. resolutions argue that the legal right to determine how to enforce its resolutions lies with the Security Council alone, not with individual nations.
In February 2006, [[Luis Moreno-Ocampo]], the lead prosecutor for the [[International Criminal Court]], reported that he had received 240 separate communications regarding the legality of the war, many of which concerned British participation in the invasion.<ref>Richard Norton-Taylor ''[http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5187283-111289,00.html International court hears anti-war claims]'' in [[The Guardian]] [[May 6]], 2005.</ref> In a letter addressed to the complainants, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo explained that he could only consider issues related to conduct during the war and not to its underlying legality as a possible crime of aggression because no provision had yet been adopted which "defines the crime and sets out the conditions under which the Court may exercise jurisdiction with respect to it." In a March 2007 interview with the [[Sunday Telegraph]], Moreno-Ocampo encouraged Iraq to sign up with the court so that it could bring cases related to alleged war crimes.<ref>Chamberlin, Gethin. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/18/nirq118.xml "Court 'can envisage' Blair prosecution"]. The Sunday Telegraph, March 17, 2003. Retrieved on May 25, 2005.</ref> Luis Moreno-Ocampo also stated that his extensive investigation found no evidence for any [[war crime]] or any [[crime against humanity]].
United States Ohio Congressman [[Dennis Kucinich]] held a press conference on the evening of [[April 24]], 2007, revealing [[US House Resolution 333]] and the three articles of impeachment against Vice President [[Dick Cheney]]. He charges Cheney with manipulating the evidence of Iraq's weapons program, deceiving the nation about Iraq's connection to al-Qaeda, and threatening aggression against Iran in violation of the [[United Nations Charter]].
{{see also|Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq|Failed Iraqi peace initiatives|Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq|Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War}}
==Military aspects==
United States military operations were conducted under the codename ''Operation Iraqi Liberation''.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030324-4.html |title = Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer |work = The White House press release|date = [[2003-03-24]] |accessdate = 2006-07-21}}</ref> The codename was later changed to ''Operation Iraqi Freedom'' The United Kingdom military operation was named ''[[Operation Telic]]''.
===Multilateral support===
In November 2002, [[United States President|U.S. President]] [[George W. Bush]], visiting [[Europe]] for a [[NATO]] summit, declared that "should Iraqi President [[Saddam Hussein]] choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a [[coalition of the willing]] to disarm him."<ref>{{cite web | title = Bush: Join 'coalition of willing' | work = CNN | url = http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ | date= 2002-11-20}}</ref>
Thereafter, the Bush administration briefly used the term Coalition of the Willing to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the military action in Iraq and subsequent military presence in [[post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present|post-invasion Iraq since 2003]]. The original list prepared in March 2003 included 49 members.<ref>{{cite web | title = Coalition Members | work = The White House | url = http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html | date= 2003-03-27}}</ref> Of those 49, only six besides the U.S. contributed troops to the invasion force (the [[United Kingdom]], [[Spain]], [[Italy]], [[Australia]], [[Poland]], and [[Denmark]]), 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete. Six members have no military.
===Invasion force===
{{Refimprovesect|date=April 2008}}
Approximately 248,000 Soldiers and Marines from the [[United States]], 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers, 1,300 Spanish soldiers, 500 Danish soldiers and 194 Polish soldiers were sent to Kuwait for the invasion.{{Fact|date=April 2008}} Of those troops, all but the [[special forces]] were kept close to bases and required to avoid hostile engagements.{{Fact|date=June 2008}} The invasion force was also supported by Iraqi [[Kurd]]ish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000.{{Fact|date=April 2008}}
A U.S. Central Command, Combined Forces Air Component Commander report, indicated that as of April 30, 2003, there were a total of 466,985 U.S. personnel deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom. This included USAF, 54,955; USAF Reserve, 2,084; USAF National Guard, 7,207; USMC, 74,405; USMC Reserve, 9,501; USN, 61,296 (681 are members of the U.S. Coast Guard); USN Reserve, 2,056; and USA, 233,342; USA Reserve, 10,683; and USA National Guard, 8,866.<ref>[www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL31763.pdf] Iraq: Summary of U.S. Forces</ref>
[[Image:Wojsko Polskie Irak DA-SD-05-12334.JPEG|thumb|right|Two Honkers in Iraq who are participating in Operation [[Iraqi Freedom]]]]
[[Image:Wojsko Polskie Irak DA-SD-05-12332.jpg|thumb|right|Another polish Honker(an all-armoured heavier version ''Honker Skorpion'' was created specifically for the Polish Army) during the [[CIMIC]] patrol]]
Plans for opening a second front in the north were severely hampered when [[Turkey]] refused the use of its territory for such purposes.<ref>for more information about Turkey's policy during the invasion look, Ali Balci and Murat Yesiltas, 'Turkey's New Middle East Policy: The Case of the Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Iraq's Neighboring Countries', Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, XXIX (4), Summer 2006, pp. 18-38</ref> In response to Turkey's decision, the United States dropped several thousand paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade into northern Iraq, a number significantly less than the 15,000 strong 4th Mechanized Infantry Division that the U.S. originally planned to use for opening the northern front.<ref>Ford, Peter. [http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0403/p09s02-woiq.html A weak northern front could lengthen Iraq War]. Christian Science Monitor, April 03, 2003. Retrieved on May 7, 2003.</ref>
===Defending force===
The number of personnel in the [[Military of Iraq|Iraqi military]] prior to the war was uncertain, but it was believed to have been poorly-equipped.<ref>{{cite news |title = Saddam's Last Line Of Defense |url = http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/26/iraq/main546241.shtml |publisher = CBS |date = [[2003-03-26]] |accessdate = 2006-08-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = Saddam counts on Republican Guard as last chance for defending Baghdad |publisher = Associated Press |url = http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030326-lastchance01.htm |date = [[2003-03-26]] |accessdate = 2006-08-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title = CDI Primer: Iraqi Military Effectiveness |url = http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=607 |date = [[2002-11-12]] |publisher = [[Center for Defense Information]] |first = Mark |last = Burgess |accessdate = 2006-08-06}}</ref> The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimated the Iraqi armed forces to number 538,000 (army 375,000, navy 2,000, air force 20,000 and air defense 17,000), the [[paramilitary]] [[Fedayeen Saddam]] 44,000,republican guard 80,000 and reserves 650,000.<ref>{{cite news |title = Military muscle |url = http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3325 |publisher = [[New Scientist]] |first = David |last = Windle |date = [[2003-01-29]] |accessdate = 2006-08-06}}</ref> Another estimate numbers the army and Republican Guard at between 280,000 to 350,000 and 50,000 to 80,000, respectively,<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-org.htm |title = Iraqi Ground Forces Organization |work = [[GlobalSecurity.org]] |accessdate = 2006-08-06}}</ref> and the paramilitary between 20,000 and 40,000.<ref>{{cite news |title = Most loyal soldiers in Iraq belong to Fedayeen Saddam |date = [[2003-03-27]] |accessdate = 2006-08-06 |url = http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030327-fedayeen02.htm|publisher = [[The Seattle Times]]}}</ref> There were an estimated thirteen [[infantry]] divisions, ten [[Mechanized infantry|mechanized]] and [[Armoured forces|armored]] divisions, as well as some [[special forces]] units. The [[Iraqi Air Force]] and [[Iraqi Navy]] played a negligible role in the conflict. In 2005, the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] released a report saying that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/]
==Invasion==
[[Image:Iraq-War-Map.png|thumb|right|225 px|Routes and major battles fought by invasion force and afterwards.]]
Since the 1991 [[Gulf War|Persian Gulf War]], the U.S. and UK had been engaged in a low-level attacks on what remained of Iraqi air defenses, while enforcing [[Iraqi no-fly zones]].<ref name = "CNN-20060525"/><ref name = "CNN-20021128"/> These zones, and the attacks to enforce them, were described as illegal by the former UN Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali and the then French foreign minister, Hubert Vedrine. Other countries, notably Russia and China, also condemned the zones as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3106][http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=308][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm]</ref> In mid-2002, the U.S. began more carefully selecting targets in the southern part of the country to disrupt the military command structure in Iraq and "pressure" the Iraqi Government into providing a pretext for war. A change in enforcement tactics was acknowledged at the time, but it was not made public that this was part of a plan known as [[Operation Southern Focus]].
The amount of ordnance dropped on Iraqi positions by Coalition aircraft during 2001 and 2002 was actually less than during 1999 and 2000 during the Clinton administration. [http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020206/text/20206w16.htm] This information has been used to attempt to refute the theory that the Bush administration had already decided to go to war against Iraq before coming to office and that the bombing done during 2001 and 2002 was unusual and laying the ground work for the eventual invasion in 2003. However, information obtained by the UK [[Liberal Democrats]] showed that the U.S. and UK dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001. The tonnage of U.S. bombs dropped increased from 0 in March 2002 and 0.3 in April 2002 to between 7 and 14 tons per month in May-August, reaching a pre-war peak of 54.6 tons in September - prior to Congress' [[October 11]] [[Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq|authorization of the invasion]]. The [[September 5]] attacks included a 100-aircraft attack on the main air defense site in western Iraq. According to an editorial in ''[[New Statesman]]'' this was "Located at the furthest extreme of the southern no-fly zone, far away from the areas that needed to be patrolled to prevent attacks on the Shias, it was destroyed not because it was a threat to the patrols, but to allow allied special forces operating from Jordan to enter Iraq undetected."<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.newstatesman.com/200505300013 |title = The war before the war |first = Michael |last = Smith |publisher = [[New Statesman|The New Statesman]]|date = [[2005-05-30]] |accessdate = 2006-08-06}}</ref> Tommy Franks, who commanded the invasion of Iraq, has since admitted that the bombing was designed to “degrade” Iraqi air defences in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war. These "spikes of activity" were, in the words of then British Defence Secretary, [[Geoff Hoon]], designed to 'put pressure on the Iraqi regime' or, as ''[[The Times]]'' reported, to "provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war". In this respect, as provocations designed to start a war, leaked British Foreign Office legal advice concluded that such attacks were illegal under international law.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article527701.ece][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article535045.ece]</ref>
Another attempt at provoking the war was mentioned in a leaked memo from a meeting between [[George W. Bush]] and [[Tony Blair]] on [[January 31]], [[2003]] at which Bush allegedly told Blair that "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."<ref>[http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.ece Bush 'plotted to lure Saddam into war with fake UN plane' - Americas, World - Independent.co.uk<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
===Opening salvo: the Dora Farms strike===
The early morning of [[March 19]], [[2003]], U.S. forces abandoned the plan for initial, non-nuclear [[decapitation strike]]s against fifty-five top Iraqi officials, in light of reports that Saddam Hussein was visiting his daughters and sons, Uday and Qusay at Dora Farms, within the [[Dora (Baghdad)|al-Dora]] farming community on the outskirts of [[Baghdad]].<ref name = "PBS-20040226">{{cite web |url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/cron/ |title=A chronology of the six-week invasion of Iraq | date=[[February 26]], [[2004]] |publisher=[[PBS]] | accessdate=2008-03-19}}</ref> At approximately 05:30 [[UTC]] two [[F-117 Nighthawk]]s from the 8th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron
<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0703/air.html | title= The First Shot | date=[[July]], [[2003]] |publisher=''Airman Magazine'' | accessdate=2008-06-18}}</ref> dropped four enhanced, satellite-guided 2,000-pound [[Bunker Buster]]s [[GBU-27]] on the compoud. Complementing the aerial bombardment were 40 [[Tomahawk cruise missiles]] fired from at least four ships, including [[Spruance class destroyer]], the [[USS Donald Cook]], and two submarines in the [[Red Sea]] and [[Persian Gulf]]. <ref name = "frantic">{{cite web |url=http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/international/middleeast/12escape.html | title=Iraqi Leader, in Frantic Flight, Eluded U.S. Strikes | date=[[March 12]], [[2006]] |author=Gordon, Michael R. & Trainor, Bernard E. | publisher=[[New York Times]] | accessdate=2008-03-19}}</ref> One missed the compound entirely and the other three missed their target landing on the other side of the wall of the palace compound.,<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/28/eveningnews/main555948.shtml | title=At Saddam's Bombed Palace: New Details About The First Strike On Saddam | date=[[May 28]], [[2003]] |publisher=[[CBS Evening News]] | accessdate=2008-03-19}}</ref> Saddam Hussein was not present nor were any members of the Iraqi leadership or Hussein family.<ref name = "PBS-20040226"/> The attack killed one civilian and injured fourteen others, including nine women and one child.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/03/21/1047749942956.html |title=Decapitation attempt was worth a try, George |date=[[March 23]], [[2003]] |author=Wilkinson, Marian |publisher=[[Sydney Morning Herald]] |accessdate=2008-06-09}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn03242007.html |title=Where are the Laptop Bombardiers Now? |date=[[March 24]], [[2007]] |author=Cockburn, Alexander |publisher=''[[CounterPunch]]'' |accessdate=2008-03-21}}</ref> Later investigation revealed that Saddam Hussein had not visited the farm since 1995.<ref name = "frantic"/>
===Opening attack===
{{Disputed-section|Article is highly vandalised|date=May 2008}}
On [[March 20]], [[2003]] at approximately 02:30 [[UTC]] or about 90 minutes after the lapse of the 48-hour deadline, at 05:33 local time, explosions were heard in Baghdad. There is now evidence that various special forces troops (including British [[Special Air Service|SAS]], the [[Australian Special Air Service Regiment|Australian SASR]] and [[4RAR]], the U.S. Army's [[Delta Force]], United States Navy [[SEALs]], United States Army's [[United States Army Special Forces|Green Berets]] and U.S. Air Force [[Air Force Combat Control|Combat Controllers]]) crossed the border into Iraq well before the air war commenced to guide strike aircraft in air attacks. At 03:15 UTC, or 10:15 p.m. EST, George W. Bush announced that he had ordered an "attack of opportunity" against targets in Iraq. As soon as this word was given the troops on standby crossed the border into Iraq.
Before the invasion, many observers had expected a lengthy campaign of aerial bombing in advance of any ground action, taking as examples the [[Gulf War|1991 Persian Gulf War]] or the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)|2001 invasion of Afghanistan]]. In practice, U.S. plans envisioned simultaneous air and ground assaults to decapitate the Iraqi forces as fast as possible (see [[Shock and Awe]]), attempting to bypass Iraqi military units and cities in most cases. The assumption was that superior mobility and co-ordination of Coalition forces would allow them to attack the heart of the Iraqi command structure and destroy it in a short time, and that this would minimize civilian deaths and damage to infrastructure. It was expected that the elimination of the leadership would lead to the collapse of the Iraqi Forces and the government, and that much of the population would support the invaders once the government had been weakened. Occupation of cities and attacks on peripheral military units were viewed as undesirable distractions.
Following [[Turkey]]'s decision to deny any official use of its territory, the Coalition was forced to abandon a planned simultaneous attack from north and south, so the primary bases for the invasion were in [[Kuwait]] and other [[Persian Gulf]] nations. One result of this was that one of the divisions intended for the invasion was forced to relocate and was unable to take part in the invasion until well into the war. Many observers felt that the Coalition devoted sufficient numbers of troops to the invasion, but too many were withdrawn after it ended, and that the failure to occupy cities put them at a major disadvantage in achieving security and order throughout the country when local support failed to meet expectations.
[[Image:Baghdad etm 2003092 lrg.jpg|thumb|300px|[[NASA]] [[Landsat 7]] image of [[Baghdad]], [[April 2]], [[2003]]. The dark streaks are smoke from oil well fires set in an attempt to hinder attacking air forces.]]
The invasion was swift, with the collapse of the Iraq government and the [[military of Iraq]] in about three weeks. The oil infrastructure of Iraq was rapidly secured with limited damage in that time. Securing the oil infrastructure was considered of great importance to funding the rebuilding of Iraq after the invasion ended. In the [[Gulf War|Persian Gulf War]], while retreating from Kuwait, the Iraqi army had set many oil wells on fire, in an attempt to disguise troop movements and to distract Coalition forces. Prior to the 2003 invasion, Iraqi forces had mined some 400 oil wells around [[Basra]] and the [[Al-Faw peninsula]] with explosives. Coalition troops launched an air and [[amphibious assault]] on the [[Al-Faw peninsula]] during the closing hours of [[March 20]] to secure the oil fields there; the amphibious assault was supported by warships of the [[Royal Navy]], [[Polish Navy]], and [[Royal Australian Navy]]. The [[United States Marine Corps]]' [[15th Marine Expeditionary Unit]], attached to 3 Commando Brigade and the [[Poland|Polish]] Special Forces unit [[GROM]] attacked the port of [[Umm Qasr]].there they encountered heavy resistance by Iraqi troops. The [[British Army]]'s [[16 Air Assault Brigade]] also secured the oilfields in southern Iraq in places like [[Rumaila Field|Rumaila]] while the Polish commandos captured offshore oil platforms near the port, preventing their destruction. Despite the rapid advance of the invasion forces, some 44 oil wells were destroyed and set ablaze by Iraqi explosives or by incidental fire. However, the wells were quickly capped and the fires put out, preventing the ecological damage and loss of oil production capacity that had occurred at the end of the [[Gulf War|Persian Gulf War]].
In keeping with the rapid advance plan, the [[U.S. 3rd Infantry Division]] moved westward and then northward through the western desert toward Baghdad, while the [[1st Marine Expeditionary Force]] moved along Highway 1 through the center of the country, and [[1 (UK) Armoured Division]] moved northward through the eastern marshland. Spanish units moved south to the Saudi-Iraqi border, then drove north to join U.S. forces. Polish troops moved with U.S. Marines, and Danish soldiers fought with the British and Australians in southern Iraq.
Initially, the U.S. 1st Marine Division fought through the Rumaila oil fields, and moved north to Nasariyah--a moderate-sized, Shi'ite dominated city with important strategic significance as a major road junction and its proximity to nearby Talil Airfield. The United States Army 3rd Infantry Division defeated Iraqi forces entrenched in and around the airfield and bypassed the city to the west. On [[March 23]], U.S Marines pressed the attack in and around Nasiriyah.and they faced heavy resistance. During the battle an [[A-10 Thunderbolt II|Air Force A-10]] was involved in a case of [[friendly fire]] that resulted in the death of six Marines.<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/086ykhgk.asp |title = Stopping Blue-on-Blue |publisher = [[The Daily Standard]] |first = Christian |last = Lowe |date = [[2003-09-08]]|accessdate = 2006-08-07}}</ref> Because of Nasiriyah's strategic position as a road junction, significant gridlock occurred as U.S. forces moving north converged on the city's surrounding highways. With Nasiriyah and Tallil Airfield secured, Coalition forces gained an important logistical center in southern Iraq, establishing FOB/EAF [[Jalibah]], some {{convert|10|mi|km}} outside of Nasiriyah through which additional troops and supplies were brought. Italian and Spanish soldiers were now arriving to advance south of the U.S. Army's advance. The [[101st Airborne Division]] continued its attack north in support of the 3rd Infantry Division. Spanish, British, and Australian paratroopers moved to Tallil. By 27-28 March, a severe sand storm slowed the Coalition advance as the 3rd Infantry Division halted its northward drive half way between Najaf and Karbala. Air operations by helicopters, poised to bring reinforcements from the 101st Abn, were blocked for three days. Heavy rain on top of the sand storm caused orange-colored mud to fall on some parts of the invasion force in the area. There was particularly heavy fighting in and around the bridge adjacent to the town of Kufl.
Farther south, the British units fought their way into Iraq's second-largest city, [[Basra]], on [[April 6]], coming under constant attack by regulars and Fedayeen, while the British [[Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom)|Red Devils]] cleared the 'old quarter' of the city that was inaccessible to vehicles. Entering Basra was achieved after two weeks of conflict. Elements of [[1 (UK) Armoured Division]] began to advance north towards U.S. positions around [[Amarah|Al Amarah]] on [[April 9]]. Pre-existing electrical and water shortages continued throughout the conflict and looting began as Iraqi forces collapsed. While Coalition forces began working with local Iraqi Police to enforce order, [[Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers]] (REME) and [[Royal Engineers]] of the British Army rapidly set up and repaired dockyard facilities to allow humanitarian aid began to arrive from ships arriving in the port city of [[Umm Qasr]].
After a rapid initial advance, the first major pause occurred in the vicinity of [[Karbala]]. There, U.S. Army elements met resistance from Iraqi troops defending cities and key bridges along the Euphrates River. These forces threatened to interdict supply routes as American forces moved north. Eventually, troops from the 101st Abn secured the cities of Najaf and Karbala to prevent any Iraqi counterattacks on the 3rd I.D. lines of communication as the division pressed its advance toward Baghdad.
===Special operations===
[[Image:Iraq invasion northern front.gif|thumb|250px|The northern front during March and April 2003]]
The 2nd [[Battalion]] of the U.S. [[5th Special Forces Group]], [[United States Army Special Forces]] (Green Berets) conducted reconnaissance in the cities of [[Basra]], [[Karbala]] and various other locations.
In the North, the [[10th Special Forces Group]] (10th SFG) which included U.S., Spanish, British, and Polish paratroopers had the mission of aiding the Kurdish parties, the [[Patriotic Union of Kurdistan]] and the [[Kurdistan Democratic Party]], de facto rulers of Iraqi [[Kurdistan]] since 1991, and employing them against the 13 Iraqi Divisions located in the vicinity of Kirkuk and Mosul. [[Turkey]] had officially forbidden any Coalition troops from using their bases or airspace, so lead elements of the 10th SFG had to make a detour infiltration; their flight was supposed to take four hours but instead took ten. Hours after the first of such flights, Turkey did allow the use of its air space and the rest of the 10th SFG infiltrated in. The preliminary mission was to destroy the base of the Kurdish terrorist group [[Ansar al-Islam]], believed to be linked to Al Qaeda. Concurrent and follow-on missions involved attacking and fixing Iraqi forces in the north, thus preventing their deployment to the southern front and the main effort of the invasion.
On [[March 26]], [[2003]], the [[173rd Airborne Brigade]] augmented the invasion's northern front by parachuting into northern Iraq onto Bashur Airfield, controlled at the time by elements of 10th SFG and Kurdish peshmerga. The fall of Kirkuk on 10 April 2003 to the 10th SFG and Kurdish peshmerga precipitated the 173rd's planned assault, preventing the unit's involvement in combat against Iraqi forces during the invasion. The successful occupation of Kirkuk came as a result of approximately two weeks of fighting that included the Battle of the Green Line (the unofficial border of the Kurdish autonomous zone) and the subsequent Battle of Kani Domlan Ridge (the ridgeline running northwest to southeast of Kirkuk), the latter fought exclusively by 3rd Battalion, 10th SFG and Kurdish peshmerga against the Iraqi I Corps. The 173rd Brigade would eventually take responsibility for Kirkuk days later, becoming involved in the counterinsurgency fight and remain there until redeploying a year later.
After Sargat was taken, Bravo Company, 3rd Battalion, 10th SFG along with their Kurdish allies pushed south towards [[Tikrit]] and the surrounding towns of Northern Iraq. Previously, during the Battle of the Green Line, Bravo Company, 3/10 with their Kurdish allies pushed back, destroyed, or routed the 13th Iraqi Infantry Division. The same company took Tikrit. Iraq was the largest deployment of [[Special Forces]] since Vietnam.
===Fall of Baghdad (April 2003)===
Three weeks into the invasion, [[Multinational force in Iraq|US-led Coalition forces]] moved into [[Baghdad]]. Initial plans were for Coalition units to surround the city and gradually move in, forcing Iraqi armor and ground units to cluster into a central pocket in the city, and then attack with air and artillery forces. This plan soon became unnecessary, as an initial engagement of armored units south of the city saw most of the Republican Guard's assets destroyed and routes in the southern outskirts of the city occupied. On [[April 5]] Task Force 1-64 Armor of the U.S. Army's Third Infantry Division executed a raid, later called the "Thunder Run", to test remaining Iraqi defenses, with 29 tanks and 14 Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicles advancing to the Baghdad airport. They met heavy resistance{{Fact|date=October 2007}}, but were successful in reaching the airport. The next day, another brigade of the 3rd I.D. attacked into downtown Baghdad and occupied one of the palaces of Saddam Hussein in fierce fighting <ref>David Zucchino, "Thunder Run: Three Days with the Tusker Brigade in the Battle of Baghdad (ISBN 184354282X), Atlantic Books, 2004; Williamson Murray and Major General Robert H. Scales, Jr., "The Iraq War," Harvard University Press, 2003</ref>. Within hours of the palace seizure and with television coverage of this spreading through Iraq, U.S. forces ordered Iraqi forces within Baghdad to surrender, or the city would face a full-scale assault. Iraqi government officials had either disappeared or had conceded defeat, and on [[April 9]], [[2003]], Baghdad was formally occupied by Coalition forces and the power of Saddam Hussein was declared ended. Much of Baghdad remained unsecured however, and fighting continued within the city and its outskirts well into the period of occupation. Saddam had vanished, and his whereabouts were unknown. Many Iraqis celebrated the downfall of Saddam by vandalizing the many portraits and statues of him together with other pieces of his [[cult of personality]].
One widely publicized event was the dramatic toppling of a large statue of Saddam in Baghdad's Fardus Square. This attracted considerable media coverage at the time. As the British ''[[Daily Mirror]]'' reported,
<blockquote>"For an oppressed people this final act in the fading daylight, the wrenching down of this ghastly symbol of the regime, is their Berlin Wall moment. Big Moustache has had his day."<ref>Anton Antonowicz, ‘Toppling Saddam's Statue Is The Final Triumph For These Oppressed People’ in The Mirror, April 10, 2003.</ref></blockquote>
As Staff Sergeant Brian Plesich reported in ''On Point: The United States Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom'',
<blockquote>"The Marine Corps colonel in the area saw the Saddam statue as a target of opportunity and decided that the statue must come down. Since we were right there, we chimed in with some loudspeaker support to let the Iraqis know what it was we were attempting to do..."
"Somehow along the way, somebody had gotten the idea to put a bunch of Iraqi kids onto the wrecker that was to pull the statue down. While the wrecker was pulling the statue down, there were Iraqi children crawling all over it. Finally they brought the statue down"<ref>Staff Sergeant Brian Plesich, team leader, Tactical Psychological Operations Team 1153, 305th Psychological Operations Company, interview by Lieutenant Colonel Dennis Cahill, 31 May 2003 in [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/ch-6.htm Col. Gregory Fontenot, Lt. Col. E.J. Degen, and Lt. Col. David Tohn: ‘On Point: The United States Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom’, Chapter 6 ‘Regime Collapse’]</ref></blockquote>
Yet it soon became known that the toppling of the statue had been staged.
"Rather than a spontaneous mass demonstration, the photo clearly shows that only a couple hundred Iraqis participated in the largely empty and heavily guarded Fardus Square. American tanks and troops surrounded the square and one armored vehicle "helped" the Iraqis pull down the statue." -- Ivan Eland, Independent Institute.
A Reuters long-shot photo of Fardus Square showed that it was nearly empty, ringed by U.S. tanks and Marines who had moved in to seal off the square before admitting the Iraqis.
The fall of Baghdad saw the outbreak of regional, sectarian violence throughout the country, as Iraqi tribes and cities began to fight each other over old grudges. The Iraqi cities of [[Al-Kut]] and [[Nasiriyah]] launched attacks on each other immediately following the fall of Baghdad to establish dominance in the new country, and the US-led Coalition quickly found themselves embroiled in a potential civil war. US-led Coalition forces ordered the cities to cease hostilities immediately, explaining that Baghdad would remain the capital of the new Iraqi government. Nasiriyah responded favorably and quickly backed down; however, Al-Kut placed snipers on the main roadways into town, with orders that invading forces were not to enter the city. After several minor skirmishes, the snipers were removed, but tensions and violence between regional, city, tribal, and familial groups continued.
General [[Tommy Franks]] assumed control of Iraq as the supreme commander of occupation forces. Shortly after the sudden collapse of the defense of Baghdad, rumors were circulating in Iraq and elsewhere that there had been a deal struck (a "safqua") wherein the US-led Coalition had bribed key members of the Iraqi military elite and/or the Ba'ath party itself to stand down. In May 2003, General Franks retired, and confirmed in an interview with Defense Week that the US-led Coalition had paid Iraqi military leaders to defect. The extent of the defections and their effect on the war are unclear.
US-led Coalition troops promptly began searching for the key members of Saddam Hussein's government. These individuals were identified by a variety of means, most famously through sets of [[most-wanted Iraqi playing cards]].
On [[July 22]], [[2003]] during a raid by the [[United States|U.S.]] [[101st Airborne Division]] and men from [[Task Force 20]], Saddam Hussein's sons [[Uday Hussein|Uday]] and [[Qusay Hussein|Qusay]], and one of his grandsons were killed in a massive fire-fight.
[[Saddam Hussein]] was captured on [[December 13]] 2003 by the [[United States|U.S.]] [[United States Army|Army's]] [[U.S. 4th Infantry Division|4th Infantry Division]] and members of [[Task Force 121]] during [[Operation Red Dawn]].
===Other areas===
In the north, Kurdish forces opposed to Saddam Hussein had already occupied for years an autonomous area in northern Iraq. With the assistance of U.S. Special Forces and air strikes, they were able to rout the Iraqi units near them and to occupy oil-rich [[Kirkuk]] on [[April 10]].
U.S. special forces had also been involved in the extreme south of Iraq, attempting to occupy key roads to [[Syria]] and airbases. In one case two armored platoons were used to convince Iraqi leadership that an entire armored battalion was entrenched in the west of Iraq.
On [[April 15]], U.S. forces took control of [[Tikrit]], the last major outpost in central Iraq, with an attack led by the Marines' [[Task Force Tripoli]]. About a week later the Marines were relieved in place by the Army's [[U.S. 4th Infantry Division|4th Infantry Division]].
===Summary of the invasion===
[[Image:AirForce over Iraq.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Aircraft of the USAF 379th Air Expeditionary Wing and UK and Australian counterparts stationed together at Al Udeid Air Base, [[Qatar]], in southwest Asia, fly over the desert on [[April 14]], [[2003]]. Aircraft include [[KC-135 Stratotanker]], [[F-15E Strike Eagle]], [[F-117 Nighthawk]], [[F-16 Fighting Falcon|F-16CJ Falcon]], British [[Panavia Tornado|GR-4 Tornado]], and Australian [[F/A-18 Hornet]].]]
The US-led Coalition forces toppled the government and captured the key cities of a large nation in only 21 days. The invasion did require a large army build-up like the 1991 Gulf War, but many didn't see combat and many were withdrawn after the invasion ended. This proved to be short-sighted, however, due to the requirement for a much larger force to combat the irregular Iraqi forces in the [[Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006|aftermath of the war]]. General [[Eric Shinseki]], Army Chief of Staff, recommended "several hundred thousand" <ref> Dave Moniz, USA TODAY, June 2, 2003 </ref> {{Fact|date=March 2007}} troops be used to maintain post-war order, but then Secretary of Defense [[Donald Rumsfeld]] — and especially his deputy, civilian [[Paul Wolfowitz]] — strongly disagreed. [[General Abizaid]] later said General Shinseki had been right.{{Fact|date=March 2007}}
The Iraqi army, armed mainly with Soviet-built equipment, was overall ill-equipped in comparison to the U.S. and UK forces. Attacks on U.S. supply routes by [[Fedayeen]] militiamen were repulsed. The Iraqis' artillery proved largely ineffective, and they were unable to mobilize their air force to attempt a defense. The Iraqi [[T-72]] tanks, the heaviest armored vehicles in the Iraqi Army, were both outdated and ill-maintained, and when they were mobilized they were rapidly destroyed, thanks in part to U.S. and UK [[air supremacy]]. The [[U.S. Air Force]], Marine Corps, Naval Aviation, and British [[Royal Air Force]] operated with impunity throughout the country, pinpointing heavily defended resistance targets and destroying them before ground troops arrived.
The [[main battle tank]]s (MBT) of the U.S. and UK forces, the U.S. [[M1 Abrams]] and British [[Challenger 2]], proved worthy in the rapid advance across the country. With the large number of [[rocket propelled grenade]] (RPG) attacks by irregular Iraqi forces, few U.S. and UK tanks were lost and no tank crewmen were killed by hostile fire. The only tank loss sustained by the British Army was a Challenger 2 of the [[Queen's Royal Lancers]] that was hit by another Challenger 2, killing two crewmen. All three British tank crew fatalities were a result of [[friendly fire]].
The Iraqi Army suffered from poor morale, even amongst the elite Republican Guard. Entire units disbanded into the crowds upon the approach of invading troops, or actually sought out U.S. and UK forces out to surrender. In one case, a force of roughly 20-30 Iraqis attempted to surrender to a two-man vehicle repair and recovery team, invoking similar instances of Iraqis surrendering to news crews during the [[Gulf War|Persian Gulf War]]. Other Iraqi Army officers were bribed by the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] (CIA) or coerced into surrendering. Worse, the Iraqi Army had incompetent leadership - reports state that [[Qusay Hussein]], charged with the defense of [[Baghdad]], dramatically shifted the positions of the two main divisions protecting Baghdad several times in the days before the arrival of U.S. forces, and as a result the units within were both confused and further demoralized when U.S. Marine and British forces attacked. By no means did the invasion force see the entire Iraqi military thrown against it; U.S. and UK units had orders to move to and seize objective target-points rather than seek engagements with Iraqi units. This resulted in most regular Iraqi military units emerging from the war fully intact and without ever having been engaged by U.S. forces, especially in southern Iraq. It is assumed that most units disintegrated to either join the growing [[Iraqi insurgency]] or returned to their homes.
According to the declassified [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] report, "The largest contributing factor to the complete defeat of Iraq's military forces was the continued interference by Saddam." The report, designed to help U.S. officials understand in hindsight how Saddam and his military commanders prepared for and fought the invasion, paints a picture of an Iraqi government blind to the threat it faced, hampered by Saddam's inept military leadership and deceived by its own [[propaganda]] and inability to believe the United States would invade a sovereign country without provocation. According to the BBC, the report portrays Saddam Hussein as "chronically out of touch with reality - preoccupied with the prevention of domestic unrest and with the threat posed by Iran."<ref>{{cite news |url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4843394.stm |title = Russia denies Iraq secrets claim |publisher = BBC News|date = [[2006-03-25]] |accessdate = 2006-08-07}}</ref>
===Security, looting and war damage===
Looting took place in the days following the 2003 invasion. Similar looting occurred for two weeks following the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama.
It was reported that the [[National Museum of Iraq]] was among the looted sites. The assertion that U.S. forces did not guard the museum because they were guarding the Ministry of Oil and Ministry of Interior is apparently true.<ref>{{cite news|title=US shamed by looting of antiquities |date=[[April 19]], [[2000]]3 |publisher=The Scotsman |url=http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=449742003}}</ref> According to U.S. officials the "reality of the situation on the ground" was that hospitals, water plants, and ministries with vital intelligence needed security more than other sites. There were only enough U.S. troops on the ground to guard a certain number of the many sites that ideally needed protection, and so, apparently, some "hard choices" were made. Also, it was reported that many trucks of purported Iraqi gold and $1.6 billion of bricks of U.S. cash were seized by U.S. forces.
<!-- Unsourced image removed: [[Image:Saddamstatue.jpg|thumb|U.S. troops topple a giant statue of Saddam in Baghdad, following the capture of the city in April.]] -->
The [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] was soon called into Iraq to track down the stolen items. It was found that the initial claims of looting of substantial portions of the collection were heavily exaggerated.
Initial reports claimed a near-total looting of the museum, estimated at upwards of 170,000 pieces. The most recent estimate places the number of looted pieces at around 15,000. Over 5,000 looted items have since been recovered.<ref>{{cite news |url = http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/040415/oi.shtml |title = Archaeologists review loss of valuable artifacts one year after looting |first = William |last = Harms |publisher = The University of Chicago Chronicle |date = [[2004-04-15]] |accessdate = 2006-08-07}}</ref>
There has been speculation that some objects still missing were not taken by looters after the war, but were taken by Saddam Hussein or his entourage before or during the fighting. There have also been reports that early looters had keys to vaults that held rarer pieces, and some have speculated as to the pre-meditated systematic removal of key artifacts.
The [[National Museum of Iraq]] was only one of many museums and sites of cultural significance that were affected by the war. Many in the arts and antiquities communities briefed policy makers in advance of the need to secure Iraqi museums. Despite the looting being lighter than initially feared, the cultural loss of items from ancient [[Sumer]] is significant.
More serious for the post-war state of Iraq was the looting of cached weaponry and ordnance which fueled the subsequent [[Iraqi insurgency|insurgency]]. As many as 250,000 tons of explosives were unaccounted for by October 2004.<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933 |title = Pentagon: Some explosives possibly destroyed |publisher = Associated Press |date = [[2004-10-29]] |accessdate = 2006-08-07}}</ref> Disputes within the [[US Department of Defense|US Defense Department]] led to delays in the post-invasion assessment and protection of Iraqi nuclear facilities. [[Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility|Tuwaitha]], the Iraqi site most scrutinized by UN inspectors since 1991, was left unguarded and may have been looted.<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35498-2003Apr24 |title = U.S. Has Not Inspected Iraqi Nuclear Facility |publisher = [[Washington Post]] |first = Barton |last = Gellman|date = [[2003-04-25]] |page = A14 |accessdate = 2006-08-07}}</ref>
[[Zainab Bahrani]], professor of Ancient Near Eastern Art History and Archaeology at [[Columbia University]], reported that a helicopter landing pad was constructed in the heart of the ancient city of [[Babylon]], and "removed layers of archeological earth from the site. The daily flights of the helicopters rattle the ancient walls and the winds created by their rotors blast sand against the fragile bricks. When my colleague at the site, Maryam Moussa, and I asked military personnel in charge that the helipad be shut down, the response was that it had to remain open for security reasons, for the safety of the troops."<ref name="Bahrani">{{cite news |title = Days of plunder |url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1293931,00.html |publisher = [[The Guardian]] |first = Zainab |last = Bahrani|date = [[2004-08-31]] |accessdate = 2006-08-07}}</ref>
Bahrani also reported that in the summer of 2004, "the wall of the Temple of Nabu and the roof of the Temple of Ninmah, both sixth century BC, collapsed as a result of the movement of helicopters."<ref name="Bahrani" /> Electrical power is scarce in post-war Iraq, Bahrani reported, and some fragile artifacts, including the Ottoman Archive, would not survive the loss of refrigeration.<ref name="Bahrani" />
===Bush declares "End of major combat operations" (May 2003)===
<!-- This section is linked from [[Paul Wolfowitz]] -->
[[Image:USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) Mission Accomplished.jpg|thumb|right|The USS ''Abraham Lincoln'' returning to port carrying its ''[[Mission Accomplished]]'' banner]]
[[Image:George W Bush on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.jpg|thumb|right|George W. Bush on the ''Abraham Lincoln'' wearing a flight suit after landing on the aircraft carrier in a military jet.]]
[[Image:Iraq 2003 occupation.png|thumb|right|Occupation zones in Iraq as of September 2003]]
On [[May 1]], [[2003]], Bush landed on the aircraft carrier [[USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)|USS ''Abraham Lincoln'']], in a [[Lockheed Martin|Lockheed]] [[S-3 Viking]], where he gave a speech announcing the end of major combat operations in the Iraq war. Bush's landing was criticized by opponents as an overly theatrical and expensive stunt. Clearly visible in the background was a banner stating "Mission Accomplished." The banner, made by [[White House]] staff and supplied by request of the United States Navy,<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/ |title = White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign |last = Bash |first = Dana |publisher = CNN |date = [[2003-10-29]] |accessdate = 2006-07-21}}</ref> was criticized as premature - especially as sectarian violence and American casualties have continued to increase since the official end of hostilities. The White House subsequently released a statement that the sign and Bush's visit referred to the initial invasion of Iraq and disputing the claim of theatrics. The speech itself noted: "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml |title = Text Of Bush Speech |publisher = Associated Press|date = [[2003-05-01]] |accessdate = 2006-07-21}}</ref>
[[Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006|Post-invasion]] Iraq has been marked by violent conflict between U.S.-led soldiers and forces described by the occupiers as [[Iraqi insurgency|insurgents]]. The ongoing resistance in Iraq was concentrated in, but not limited to, an area referred to by Western media and the occupying forces as the [[Sunni triangle]] and Baghdad.<ref>{{cite web |title = Operation Iraqi Freedom Maps |url = http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraqi_freedom-ops-maps.htm |publisher = GlobalSecurity.org|accessdate = 2006-07-21}}</ref>
This resistance may be described as [[guerrilla warfare]]. The tactics in use were to include mortars, suicide bombers, roadside bombs, small arms fire, [[improvised explosive device]]s (IED's), and [[rocket propelled grenade|handheld antitank grenade-launchers]] (RPG's), as well as sabotage against the oil infrastructure. There are also accusations, questioned by some, about attacks toward the power and water infrastructure.
There is evidence that some of the resistance was organized, perhaps by the [[fedayeen]] and other Saddam Hussein or Ba'ath loyalists, religious radicals, Iraqis angered by the occupation, and foreign fighters.<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3973.htm |title = Iraqi attacks could signal wide revolt |publisher = The Seattle Times|date = [[2003-07-01]] |accessdate = 2006-08-07}}</ref>
Many experts now consider Iraq to have degenerated into [[civil war]], although the Bush administration disputes the accuracy of the term. According to a survey [[Lancet surveys of casualties of the Iraq War|2006 study]] conducted by the [[Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health]], more than 601,000 Iraqis have died in the violence following the 2003 invasion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html|title=2006 Study of Iraq Mortality}}</ref>
==Casualties==
{{main|Casualties in the conflict in Iraq|Refugees of Iraq}}
===Death toll===
While estimates on the number of casualties during the invasion in Iraq vary widely, the majority of deaths and injuries have occurred after U.S. President Bush declared the end of "major combat operations" on May 1, 2003.<ref name="CNNNewIraq">Reuters, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501190.html "Getting amputees back on their feet"].''[[Washington Post]].'' Oct. 25, 2005.</ref> According to [[CNN]], the U.S. government reported that 139 American military personnel were killed before May 1, 2003, while over 4,000 have been killed since 2003.<ref name="CNNNewIraq" /> Estimates on civilian casualties are more variable than those for military personnel. According to [http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Iraq Body Count], a group that relies on Western press reports to measure civilian casualties, approximately 7,500 civilians were killed during the invasion phase, while more than 60,000 civilians have been killed as of April 2007.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr12.php|title=Iraq Body Count: A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003 – 2005.|accessmonthday=May 2|accessyear=2007}}</ref>
In November 2006 [[Council of Ministers of Iraq|Iraq's Health Minister]] [[Ali al-Shemari]] said that since the March 2003 invasion between 100,000 and 150,000 Iraqis have been killed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/09/europe/EU_GEN_Austria_Iraqis_Killed.php|title=Iraqi health minister estimates as many as 150,000 Iraqis killed by insurgents}}</ref> Al-Shemari based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals – such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773|title=Iraqi death toll estimates go as high as 150,000}}</ref>
The [[Lancet surveys of casualties of the Iraq War]], conducted by researchers at [[Johns Hopkins University]], estimates much higher civilian casualties, but does not differentiate between the invasion phase (March-May 2003) and the occupation phase (post May 2003). The Lancet survey estimates that over 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the conflict, with the vast majority of these deaths occurring after May 2003.<ref>Parsons, Tim. [http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2006/16oct06/16iraq.html "Updated Iraq Study Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates".] [http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/ ''The JHU Gazette''], October 16, 2006. Retrieved May 24, 2007.</ref>
A September 14, 2007 [[ORB survey of casualties of the Iraq War|estimate by ORB]] (Opinion Research Business), an independent British polling agency, suggests that the total Iraqi violent death toll due to the Iraq War since the US-led invasion is in excess of 1.2 million (1,220,580). Although higher than the [[Lancet surveys of casualties of the Iraq War|2006 Lancet estimate]], these results, which were based on a survey of 1499 adults in Iraq from August 12-19, 2007, are more or less consistent with the figures that were published in the Lancet study.<ref name="ORB"> [http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78 "More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered"]. September 2007. Opinion Research Business. PDF report: [http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/TABLES.pdf]</ref><ref name="LAtimes"> [http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/14/3839/ "Poll: Civilian Death Toll in Iraq May Top 1 Million"]. By Tina Susman. Sept. 14, 2007. ''[[Los Angeles Times]].''</ref><ref name="observer"> [http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/16/3879/ "Greenspan Admits Iraq was About Oil, As Deaths Put at 1.2 Million"]. By Peter Beaumont and Joanna Walters. Sept. 16, 2007. ''[[The Observer|The Observer (UK)]].''</ref><ref name="medialens"> [http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070918_the_media_ignore.php "The Media Ignore Credible Poll Revealing 1.2 Million Violent Deaths In Iraq"]. Sept. 18, 2007. ''[[MediaLens]].''</ref>
On [[January 28]], [[2008]], ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken and as a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.<ref name=update>[http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88 Update on Iraqi Casualty Data] by Opinion Research Business, January 2008</ref>
===Iraqi refugees===
Over 4.2 million Iraqis, more than 16% of the Iraqi population, have lost their homes and become [[refugees]] since 2003. As of [[June 21]], [[2007]], the [[United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]] estimated that 2.2 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighboring countries, and 2 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/20/damon.iraqrefugees/index.html Iraq refugees chased from home, struggle to cope]</ref><ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/11/03/un_nearly_100000_flee_iraq_monthly/ U.N.: 100,000 Iraq refugees flee monthly]. Alexander G. Higgins, ''[[Boston Globe]],'' [[November 3]], [[2006]]</ref> Roughly 40% of Iraq's [[middle class]] is believed to have fled, the U.N. said. Most are fleeing systematic persecution and have no desire to return. All kinds of people, from university professors to bakers, have been targeted by [[militias]], [[insurgents]] and criminals. An estimated 331 school teachers were slain in the first four months of 2006, according to Human Rights Watch, and at least 2,000 Iraqi doctors have been killed and 250 kidnapped since the 2003 U.S. invasion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/16/MNG2MNJBIS1.DTL|title=40% of middle class believed to have fled crumbling nation}}</ref><ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/09/asia/refugees.php Iraq's middle class escapes, only to find poverty in Jordan]</ref><ref>[http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2701324.ece '50,000 Iraqi refugees' forced into prostitution]</ref>
The UN reports that although [[Christians]] comprise less than 5% of Iraq's population, they make up nearly 40% of the refugees fleeing Iraq.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-22-christians-iraq_N.htm Christians, targeted and suffering, flee Iraq]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601004.html Iraq's Endangered Minorities]</ref> More than 50% of [[Iraqi Christians]] have already left the country.<ref>[http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA052707.01A.chaldean_christians.3555f3e.html Out of Iraq, a flight of Chaldeans]</ref> In the 16th century, Christians were half the population of Iraq.<ref>[http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=news&id=461e5a644 UNHCR Iraq]</ref> In 1987, the last Iraqi census counted 1.4 million Christians.<ref>[http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=61897 Christians live in fear of death squads]</ref> But as the war has radicalized Islamic sensibilities, Christians' total numbers slumped to about 500,000, of whom 250,000 live in [[Baghdad]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1961207,00.html|title='We're staying and we will resist'}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=7410|title=Terror campaign targets Chaldean church in Iraq}}</ref> Furthermore, the [[Mandaeans|Mandaean]] and [[Yazidi]] communities are at the risk of elimination due to [[ethnic cleansing]] by [[Islamism|Islamic]] extremists.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6412453.stm|title=Iraq's Mandaeans 'face extinction'}}</ref><ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.main/index.html?iref=topnews Iraqi officials: Truck bombings killed at least 500]</ref> As many as 110,000 Iraqis could be targeted as [[Collaborationism|collaborators]] because of their work for coalition forces.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/65269.html|title=Ambassador wants more visas for loyal Iraqis}}</ref>
A May 25, 2007 article notes that in the past seven months only 69 people from Iraq have been granted [[Immigration to the United States#Asylum for refugees|refugee status]] in the [[United States]].<ref>Ann McFeatters: [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/317322_mcfeatters27.html Iraq refugees find no refuge in America]. ''[[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]]'' May 25, 2007</ref>
==Media coverage==
{{main|2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage}}
===U.S. media coverage===
The U.S. invasion of Iraq was the most widely and closely reported war in military history.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/15_mediatwar.shtml|title=Reporters, commentators conduct an in-depth postmortem of Iraq war's media coverage}}</ref> Television network coverage was largely pro-war and viewers were six times more likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1145|title=Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent}}</ref> The New York Times ran a number of articles describing Saddam Hussein's attempts to build weapons of mass destruction. The [[September 8]], 2002 article titled "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts" would be discredited, leading the New York Times to issue a public statement admitting it was not as rigorous as it should have been.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1400990400&en=94c17fcffad92ca9&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND|title=The Times and Iraq}}</ref>
At the start of the war in March 2003, as many as 775 reporters and photographers were traveling as [[embedded journalists]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/15_mediatwar.shtml|title=Reporters, commentators visit Berkeley to conduct in-depth postmortem of Iraq war coverage}}</ref> These reporters signed contracts with the military that limited what they were allowed to report on.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/embed_3-27.html|title=Pros and Cons of Embedded Journalism}}</ref> When asked why the military decided to embed journalists with the troops, Lt. Col. Rick Long of the U.S. Marine Corps replied, “Frankly, our job is to win the war. Part of that is [[information warfare]]. So we are going to attempt to dominate the information environment.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_iraqmedia.shtml|title=Postmortem: Iraq war media coverage dazzled but it also obscured}}</ref>
A September 2003 poll revealed that seventy percent of Americans believed there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm|title=Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link}}</ref> 80% of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one such belief about the invasion, compared to 23% of PBS viewers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brus|title=Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War}}</ref> [[Ted Turner]], founder of CNN, said that [[Rupert Murdoch]] was using Fox News to advocate an invasion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3132.htm|title=Murdoch helped start war on Iraq, says Turner}}</ref> Critics have argued that this statistic is indicative of misleading coverage by the U.S. media since viewers in other countries were less likely to have these beliefs.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm|title=Bush and Iraq: Mass Media, Mass Ignorance}}</ref>
===Independent media coverage===
[[Independent media]] also played a prominent role in covering the invasion. The [[Media Workers Against the War]] [http://www.mwaw.org] and the [[Indymedia]] [http://www.indymedia.org] network, among many other independent networks including many journalists from the invading countries, provided reports in a way difficult to control by any government, corporation or political party. In the United States [[Democracy Now]], hosted by [[Amy Goodman]] has been critical of the reasons for the 2003 invasion and the alleged crimes committed by the U.S. authorities in Iraq.
On the other side, among media not opposing to the invasion, [[The Economist]] stated in an article on the matter that "the normal diplomatic tools—sanctions, persuasion, pressure, UN resolutions—have all been tried, during 12 deadly but failed years" then giving a mild conditional support to the war stating that "if Mr Hussein refuses to disarm, it would be right to go to war"<ref>[http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1592539]</ref>.
Australian [[war artist]] [[George Gittoes]] collected independent interviews with soldiers while producing his documentary [[Soundtrack To War]]. The war in Iraq provided the first time in history that military on the front lines were able to provide direct, uncensored reportage themselves, thanks to [[blog]]ging software and the reach of the [[internet]]. Dozens of such reporting sites, known as [[Warblog|soldier blogs]] or milblogs, were started during the war. These blogs were more often than not largely pro-war and stated various reasons why the soldiers and Marines felt they were doing the right thing.[http://www.time.com/time/world/printout/0,8816,1543658,00.html]
===International media coverage===
International coverage of the war differed from coverage in the U.S. in a number of ways.
The Arab-language news channel Al Jazeera and the German Satellite channel Deutsche
Welle featured almost twice as much information on the political background of the war.<ref>[http://www.agendasetting.com/newsletter/ICA.pdf International comparison of TV news coverage of Iraq].</ref> Al Jazeera also showed scenes of civilian casualties which were rarely seen in the U.S.
==Criticisms==
{{main|Criticism of the Iraq War}}
Opponents of military intervention in Iraq have attacked the decision to invade Iraq along a number of lines, including calling into question the [[2003 invasion of Iraq#Rationale|evidence]] used to justify the war, arguing for continued diplomacy, challenging the war’s [[2003 invasion of Iraq#Legality of invasion|legality]], suggesting that the U.S. had other more pressing security priorities, (i.e. Afghanistan and [[North Korea]]) and predicting that the war would destabilize the Middle East region.
The breadth and depth of the criticism was particularly notable in comparison with the first [[Gulf War]], which met with considerably less domestic and international opposition, although the geopolitical situation had evolved since the last decade.
===Rationale based on faulty evidence===
The central U.S. justification for launching the Iraq War was that Saddam Hussein's alleged development of nuclear and biological weapons and purported ties to al-Qaeda made his regime a "grave and growing"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html|title=President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002}}</ref> threat to the United States and the world community.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/index.html "Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation"]. [http://www.CNN.com], February 6, 2003. Retrieved on April 6, 2007.</ref> During the lead-up to the war and the aftermath of the invasion, critics cast doubt on the evidence supporting this rationale. Concerning Iraq’s weapons programs, prominent critics included [[Scott Ritter]], a former U.N. weapons inspector who argued in 2002 that inspections had eliminated the nuclear and chemical weapons programs, and that evidence of their reconstitution would “have been eminently detectable by intelligence services ….” Although Saddam Husein had earlier forced the IAEA weapons inspectors to leave Iraq, after the build up of U.S. troops in neighboring states, he welcomed them back and promised complete cooperation with their demands. Experienced IAEA inspection teams were already back in Iraq and had made some interim reports on its search for various forms of WMD.<ref>March 7, 2003, IAEA essay published in the Wall Street Journal (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebWSJ20030307.shtml); the Feb 14, 2003, IAEA Statement to the United Nations (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n005.shtml); Hans Blix Feb. 9, 2003, press conference (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/pressconf_09022003.pdf); IAEA Media Advisory 2003/1003 (10 March 2003)(http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2003/ma_iraq_1003.shtm); and The Capital Times "Media Miss War Dissent In Congress" (Feb. 6, 2003) (http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2003/02/06/0302060078.php).</ref> [[Joseph C. Wilson]], an American diplomat investigated claims that Iraq had sought uranium for nuclear weapons in [[Niger uranium forgeries|Niger]] and reported that they had no substance.<ref>Pitt, William R. ''War On Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know''. 2002, Context Books, New York. ISBN 1-893956-38-5.</ref><ref>Wilson, Joseph C. "What I Didn’t Find in Africa." ''The New York Times'', Sunday, July 6, 2003. Retrieved from [http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm] on April 17, 2007.</ref> The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee "found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts."<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html "Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission"]</ref> Prior to the invasion, Wilson also argued that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."<ref>[http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/saddam.html "How Saddam Thinks"]</ref>"<ref>[http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/big_cat.html "A "Big Cat" With Nothing to Lose"]</ref>
Similarly, alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda were called into question during the lead up to the war, and were largely discredited by an October 21, 2004 report from U.S. Senator [[Carl Levin]], which was later corroborated by an April 2006 report from the Defense Department’s inspector general.<ref>Jehl, Douglas. [http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/21/news/intel.php "Pentagon official distorted intelligence, report says"]. International Herald Tribune, October 22, 2004. Retrieved on April 18, 2007.</ref> These reports further alleged that Bush Administration officials, particularly former undersecretary of defense [[Douglas J. Feith]], manipulated evidence to support links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.<ref>Pincus, Walter and R. Jeffrey Smith. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html “Official’s Key Report on Iraq is Faulted]. The Washington Post, Friday, February 9, 2007; Page A01</ref>
===Lack of a U.N. mandate===
One of the main questions in the lead-up to the war was whether the [[United Nations Security Council]] would authorize military intervention in Iraq. When it became increasingly clear that U.N. authorization would require significant further weapons inspections, and that the U.S. and Britain planned to invade Iraq regardless, many criticized their effort as unwise, immoral, and illegal. [[Robin Cook]], then the leader of the [[British House of Commons]] and a former foreign secretary, resigned from [[Tony Blair|Tony Blair's]] cabinet in protest over Britain’s decision to invade without the authorization of a U.N. resolution. Cook said at the time that: "In principle I believe it is wrong to embark on military action without broad international support. In practice I believe it is against Britain's interests to create a precedent for unilateral military action.”<ref>
Tempest, Matthew.
[http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,916123,00.html “Cook resigns from cabinet over Iraq”]. ''The Guardian'', March 17, 2003. Retrieved on April 17, 2007.</ref>
[[United Nations Secretary-General]] [[Kofi Annan]] said, when pressed in an interview with the BBC in September 2004, "[F]rom our point of view and from the Charter point of view [the war] was illegal."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm|title=Excerpts: Annan interview|date=[[September 16]], [[2004]]|publisher=BBC News|accessdate=2007-08-07}}</ref> This drew immediate criticism from the United States and was immediately played down."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25685-2004Sep16.html|title=U.S., Allies Dispute Annan on Iraq War|first=Colum|last=Lynch|publisher=Washington Post|date=[[September 17]], [[2004]]|page=A18|accessdate=2006-05-25}}</ref> His annual report to the [[General Assembly]] for 2003 included no more than the statement: "Following the end of major hostilities which resulted in the occupation of Iraq..."<ref name="UN_A581">{{UN document |docid=A-58-1 |type=Document |body=General Assembly |session=58 |page=9 |accessdate=2007-08-08|date=[[August 28]], [[2003]]}}</ref> A similar report from the Security Council was similarly terse in its reference to the event: "Following the cessation of hostilities in Iraq in April 2003..."<ref name="UN_A582">{{UN document |docid=A-58-2 |type=Document |body=General Assembly |session=58 |page=20 |accessdate=2007-08-08|date=[[September 23]], [[2003]]}}</ref>
However, some argue that Kofi Annan was simply picking sides and playing politics. The United Nations Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 678|678]], passed on November 29, 1990. It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 660|660]] and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area." However, the phrase "restore international peace and security in the area" was widely understood to refer to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and was not a blank check for future military aggression against Iraq. In addition, it could be argued that U.S. and British military action against Iraq during the 1990s and in 2003 was in itself violating these resolutions because it threatened "peace and security" in the area.
===Military intervention vs diplomatic solution===
{{see|:w:Discours prononcé à l'ONU lors de la crise irakienne - 14 février 2003{{!}}Dominique de Villepin's speech at the U.N. Security Council (February 14, 2003)}}<!-- i tried to link the French wikisource article "Discours prononcé à l'ONU lors de la crise irakienne - 14 février 2003" without success, if anyone with more experience could fix this by any chance, thanks. -->
[[Image:Size1-army.mil-2007-12-13-143938.jpg|thumb|200px|Spc. Deidre Olivas gives a toy to an Iraqi child waiting for medical treatment during a combined medical mission in Quadria, Dec. 7. Spc. Olivas is from Forward Support Troop, 1st Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment.]]
Criticisms about the evidence used to justify the war notwithstanding, many opponents of military intervention objected on the grounds that a diplomatic solution would be preferable, and that war should be reserved as a truly last resort. This position was exemplified by French Foreign Minister [[Dominique de Villepin]], who responded to U.S. Secretary of State [[Colin Powell|Colin Powell's]] February 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N Security Council by saying that: "Given the choice between military intervention and an inspections regime that is inadequate because of a failure to cooperate on Iraq's part, we must choose the decisive reinforcement of the means of inspections."<ref>
[http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.world.reax/ “Nations take sides after Powell's speech”]. CNN.com, February 6, 2003. Retrieved April 17, 2006.</ref>
On February 12, 2003 following the U.N. inspection report delivery, each one of the 15 representative of the U.N Security Council were given a 10 minute speech to expose the position they chose for their country. The [[Hans Blix]]-led [[United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission]] report concluded on "no evidence of forbidden military nuclear activities", "no evidence of mass destruction weapon" (Iraq’s unconventional weapons program would had been successfully dismantled during the 1990s), but "Baghdad must cooperate more".<ref name = "ina.fr-20030214">[http://www.ina.fr/archivespourtous/index.php?vue=notice&from=fulltext&datedif_jour1=14&datedif_mois1=02&datedif_annee1=2003&chaine=FR3&num_notice=1&total_notices=2 Discours Villepin Powell à Onu (National Audiovisual Institute archives)], French news national edition, France 3 French public channel, 14 February 2003</ref>
First speaker was the [[Syrian Arab Republic]] representative —sole Arab state in the council— who strongly supported the continuation of the inspections, arguing that Iraq was accused to not respect the UN resolutions while [[Israel]] ignored more than 500 of them and owned mass destruction weapons as well.
Next was de Villepin. Some excerpts that voice opposition to immediate use of military force: “In adopting unanimously resolution 1441, we have collectively shown our agreement on proceeding with two steps: the choice of disarmament by way of inspections, and, in case of failure of this strategy, the examination by the Security Council of all options, including that of recourse to force. It's in this scenario of failure of the inspections, and in this case only, that a second resolution can be justified. … France has two convictions: first, that the option of inspections hasn't been carried through to its conclusion and can bring an effective response to the imperative to disarm Iraq; and second, that a use of force would have such heavy consequences for people, for the region et for international stability, that it couldn’t be envisaged except as a last resort. … We have just heard [in the report from Mr Blix and Mr El Baradeï] that the inspections are giving results. Of course, each of us wants more, and we continue together to put pressure on Bagdad to obtain more. But the inspections are giving results. [De Villepin then lists some of these results, and describes them as ‘significant advances’. He describes steps France has made to help these inspections give more results.]
“There are two options: the option of war may appear a priori the fastest. But let us not forget that that after having won the war, we will have to construct peace. And let us not deceive ourselves: it will be long and difficult, for we will have to preserve the unity of Iraq, re-establish in a durable manner stability in a country and a region strongly affected by the intrusion of force. [The other option is the inspections], which allow to progress day by day towards an effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. All things considered, is this option not the most sure and the fastest?
“… In this context, the use of force isn't justified today. …
“The authority for our action rests on the unity of the international community. A military intervention that is premature would jeopardize that unity, which would remove its legitimacy and, over the course of time, its effectiveness.
“Such an intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this bruised and fragile region. It would reinforce the feeling of injustice, would aggravate tensions and would risk opening the way to other conflicts.”
On the subject of terrorism, de Villepin casts doubt on “the supposed links between Al-Qaida and the regime of Baghdad”. He continues: “On the other hand, … would such an intervention today not risk aggravating the fractures between societies, between cultures, between people, the fractures on which terrorism lives?”<ref>[http://www.un.int/france/documents_francais/030214_cs_france_irak.htm] , translated & excerpted by the editors of this wikipedia article — N.B. not by a professional translator.</ref>
France took the lead of the diplomatic solution front together with Germany and Russia, in the likes of a classic [[Triple Alliance|XIXth century European empires alliance]], as de Villepin advocated for an additional time for the inspectors.
{{cquote|In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guards of an ideal, we are the guards of a conscience. The heavy responsibility and the immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace. … And it is an old country, France, of an old continent like mine, Europe, that says this to you today, which has seen war, occupation, cruelty. A country that does not forget and that knows all that it owes to the freedom fighters from America and elsewhere. … Faithful to its values, it believes in our capacity to construct together a better world.}}
[[Image:Bush and Chirac.jpg|thumb|200px|U.S. President [[George W. Bush]] (55) and French President [[Jacques Chirac]] (69) in 2001]]
Colin Powell responded that Iraq cheated with the UN and the inspections could not continue indefinitely.<ref name = "ina.fr-20030214"/>
The direct opposition between diplomatic solution and military intervention involving France and the United States which was impersonated by Chirac versus Bush then later Powell versus de Villepin, became a milestone in the [[Franco-American relations]]. [[Francophobia|Anti-French propangada]] exploiting the classic Francophobic clichés immediately ensued in the [[Anti-French sentiment in the United States|United States]] and Great Britain. A call for a boycott on French wine was launched in the United States and the ''[[New York Post]]'' covered on the 1944 "Sacrifice" of the [[GI (military)|GIs]] France would had forgotten. It was followed a week later, in February 20, by the British newspaper ''[[The Sun (newspaper)|The Sun]]'' publishing a special issue entitled "Chirac is a worm" and including ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks such as "Jacques Chirac has become the shame of Europe".<ref name = "ina.fr-20030220">[http://www.ina.fr/archivespourtous/index.php?vue=notice&from=fulltext&full=ankara&num_notice=3&total_notices=12 20 heures le journal : émission du 20 février 2003 (National Audiovisual Institute archives)], French news national edition, France 2 French public channel, 20 February 2003]</ref> Actually both newspapers expressed the opinion of their owner, U.S. billionaire [[Rupert Murdoch]], a military intervention supporter and a George W. Bush partisan as argued by [[Roy Greenslade]] in ''[[The Guardian]]'' published on February 17.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,897015,00.html|title=''Their master's voice'', Roy Greenslade, The Guardian, Monday February 17, 2003}}</ref><ref name = "ina.fr-20030220"/>
===Distraction from the war on terrorism and other priorities===
Both supporters and opponents of the Iraq War widely viewed it within the context of a post-[[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11]] world, where the U.S. has sought to make terrorism the defining international security paradigm. Bush often describes the Iraq War as a “central front in the [[war on terror]].”.<ref>Office of the Press Secretary. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050628-7.html President Addresses Nation, Discusses Iraq, War on Terror"]. White House Press Release, June 28, 2005. Retrieved on April 17, 2007.</ref> Some critics of the war, particularly within the U.S. military community, argued pointedly against the conflation of Iraq and the war on terror, and criticized Bush for losing focus on the more important objective of fighting al-Qaeda. As Marine Lieut. General [[Greg Newbold]], the Pentagon's former top operations officer, wrote in a 2006 Time article, “I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda.”<ref>Newbold, Greg. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html "Why Iraq Was a Mistake".] ''Time Magazine'', April 9, 2006. Retrieved on April 16, 2007.</ref>
Critics within this vein have further argued that containment would have been an effective strategy for the Hussein government, and that the top U.S. priorities in the [[Middle East]] should be encouraging a solution to the [[Israeli-Palestinian conflict]], working for the moderation of [[Iran]], and solidifying gains made in [[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)|Afghanistan]] and central Asia. In an October 2002 speech, Retired Marine Gen. [[Anthony Zinni]], former head of [[Central Command]] for U.S. forces in the Middle East and State Department's envoy to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, called Iraq “maybe six or seven,” in terms of U.S. Middle East priorities, adding that “the affordability line may be drawn around five.”<ref>Boehlert, Eric. [http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni/index.html?pn=1 "I'm not sure which planet they live on"]. ''Salon'', October 17, 20002. Retrieved April 17, 2007.</ref> However, while commander of CENTCOM, Zinni held a very different opinion concerning the threat posed by Iraq. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2000, Zinni said: “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD, oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), persistent threats to enforcement of the No Fly Zones (NFZ), and continued efforts to violate UN Security Council sanctions through oil smuggling.”<ref>[http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000229az.pdf Statement of General Anthony C. Zinni, Commander in Chief, US Central Command, before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Armed Services]</ref>
===Potential to destabilize the region===
In addition to arguing that Iraq was not the top strategic priority in the war on terrorism or in the Middle East, critics of the war also suggested that it could potentially destabilize the surrounding region. Prominent among such critics was [[Brent Scowcroft]], who served as [[National Security Adviser]] to [[George H. W. Bush]]. In an [[August 15]], [[2002]] ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' editorial entitled "Don't attack [[Saddam Hussein|Saddam]]," Scowcroft wrote that: “Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region” where there could be “an explosion of outrage against us” that “could well destabilize Arab regimes” and “could even swell the ranks of the terrorists.”<ref>Scowcroft, Brent. [http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133 "Don't attack Saddam"]. ''The Wall Street Journal,'' August 15, 2002. Retrieved April 17, 2007.</ref>
==Related phrases==
{{see also|Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq}}
This campaign featured a variety of new terminology, much of it initially coined by the U.S. government or military. The military official name for the invasion was Operation Iraqi Liberation ([http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030324-4.html White House Press Release]). However this was quickly changed to "Operation Iraqi Freedom." Also notable was the usage "[[death squad]]s" to refer to [[fedayeen]] paramilitary forces. Members of the Saddam Hussein government were called by disparaging [[nickname]]s - e.g., "Chemical Ali" ([[Ali Hassan al-Majid]]), "Baghdad Bob" or "Comical Ali" ([[Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf]]), and "Mrs. Anthrax" or "Chemical Sally" ([[Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash]]). Saddam Hussein was systematically referred to as "Saddam", which some Westerners mistakenly believed to be disparaging. (Although there is no consensus about how to refer to him in English, "Saddam" is acceptable usage, and is how people in Iraq and the Middle East generally refer to him.<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/saddam_hussein.html |title = Words: Woe and Wonder |last = Shewchuk |first = Blair |publisher = CBC News Online|date=February 2003 |accessdate = 2006-07-21}}</ref>)
Terminology introduced or popularized during the war include:
* "[[Axis of evil]]", originally used by Bush during a [[State of the Union]] address on [[January 29]], [[2002]] to describe the countries of Iraq, Iran and North Korea.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html |title = The President's State of the Union Address|date = [[2002-01-29]] |accessdate = 2006-07-21}}</ref>
* "[[Coalition of the willing]]", a term that originated in the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era (e.g., interview, Clinton, [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]], [[June 8]], [[1994]]), and used by the Bush Administration to describe the countries contributing troops in the invasion, of which the U.S. and UK were the primary members.
* "[[Dead checking]]", a U.S. military colloquial term for killing all wounded men in any suspected insurgent house they enter.
* "[[Decapitation|Decapitating]] the regime", a euphemism for either overthrowing the government or killing Saddam Hussein.
* "[[Embedded journalist|Embedding]]", United States practice of assigning civilian [[journalist]]s to U.S. military units.
* "[[Old Europe]]", [[Donald Rumsfeld|Rumsfeld's]] term used to describe European governments not supporting the war: "You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think that's old Europe."
* "[[Regime change]]", a euphemism for overthrowing a government.
* "[[Shock and Awe]]", the strategy of reducing an enemy's will to fight through displays of overwhelming force.
Many slogans and terms coined came to be used by Bush's political opponents, or those opposed to the war. For example, in April 2003 [[John Kerry]], the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] candidate in the [[2004 United States Presidential Election|presidential election]], said at a campaign rally: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States."<ref>{{cite news |url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23490-2003Apr3 |last = Balz |first = Dan |title = Kerry Angers GOP in Calling For 'Regime Change' in U.S. |publisher = [[The Washington Post]] |page = A10|date = [[2003-04-03]] |accessdate = 2006-07-21}}</ref> Other war critics use the name "Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)" to subtly point out their opinion as to the cause of the war, such as the song Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) by [[David Rovics]], a popular folk protest singer.
==See also==
{{wikinewscat|Iraq War}}
{{portal|Iraq War|Flag_of Iraq.svg}}
{{portal|Iraq|Flag of Iraq.svg}}
*[[American government position on invasion of Iraq]]
*[[American popular opinion of invasion of Iraq]]
*[[Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq]]
*[[British Mandate of Iraq]]
*[[Carter Doctrine]]
*[[Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003]]
*[[Command responsibility]]
*[[Democracy in the Middle East]]
*[[Energy crisis]]
*[[Foreign hostages in Iraq]]
*[[Foreign policy of the United States]]
*[[Governments' pre-war positions on invasion of Iraq]]
*[[Human rights in post-Saddam Iraq]]
*[[Iraq disarmament crisis]]
*[[Iraqi insurgency]]
*[[Jus ad bellum]]
*[[Lancet surveys of casualties of the Iraq War]]
*[[Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq]]
*[[List of aviation accidents and incidents during the Iraq War]]
*[[List of people associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq]]
*[[List of wars and disasters by death toll]]
*[[Movement to impeach George W. Bush]]
*[[Occupation of Iraq timeline]]
*[[Oil reserves#Iraq|Oil reserves in Iraq]]
*[[Peak oil theory]]
*[[Petrodollar warfare]]
*[[Petroleum industry]]
*[[Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq]]
*[[Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq War]]
*[[Protests against the 2003 Iraq war]]
*[[Reconstruction of Iraq]]
*[[Refugees of Iraq]]
*[[Sectarian violence in Iraq]]
*[[The Short Life of José Antonio Gutierrez]]
*[[The UN Security Council and the Iraq war]]
*[[United Nations Charter]]
*[[Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq]]
*[[War on Terrorism]]
*[[Weapons of the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq]]
*[[Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq]]
==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}
==References==
*Allen, Mike and Juliet Eilperin. Monday, August 26, 2002. Page A01 ''[[The Washington Post]]'' ''[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61040-2002Aug25?language=printer "Bush Aides Say Iraq War Needs No Hill Vote"]''. Accessed on [[2008-05-21]].
* CNN.com/Inside Politics ([[2002-10-11]]). [http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ "Senate approves Iraq war resolution"]. Accessed on [[June 06]], [[2005]].
* Donnelly, Thomas. ''Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century''. Report of the [[Project for the New American Century]], September 2000. [http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf Available online].
* Joint Forces Command. [http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf "Iraq war from Saddam's perspective"], 2006.
* [[John McCain|McCain, John]]. [http://www.afa.org/magazine/july2004/0704iraq.asp "Finishing the Job in Iraq"]. ''Air Force Magazine'', July 2004.
* [[Ron Paul|Paul, U.S. Representative Ron, Office of]] (2002). [http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm "Paul Calls for Congressional Declaration of War with Iraq"]. Accessed on [[June 06]], [[2005]].
*{{cite book
| last=Reynolds
| first=Nicholas E.
| authorlink= |coauthors= |editor= |others=
| title=Basrah, Baghdad, and Beyond: U.S. Marine Corps in the Second Iraq War
| origdate= |origyear= |origmonth= |url= |format= |accessdate= |accessyear= |accessmonth= |edition= |series=
| date=2005-05-01
| year= |month=
| publisher=[[United States Naval Institute|Naval Institute Press]]
| location= |language=
| isbn=9781591147176
| oclc= |doi= |id= |pages= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote=
}}
*{{cite book
| last=Ricks
| first=Thomas E.
| authorlink=Thomas E. Ricks (journalist)
| coauthors= |editor= |others=
| title=[[Fiasco (book)|Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq]]
| origdate= |origyear=2006
| origmonth= |url= |format= |accessdate= |accessyear= |accessmonth= |edition= |series= |date= |year= |month=
| publisher=Penguin
| location= |language=
| isbn=159420103X
| oclc= |doi= |id= |pages= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= }}
* Wright, Steven. ''The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations of the War on Terror''. Ithaca Press: 2007. ISBN 978-0863723216.
*{{cite book
| last= Zucchino
| first= David
| authorlink=
| coauthors=
| title= Thunder Run: The Armored Strike to Capture Baghdad
| year=2004
| publisher= Atlantic Monthly Press
| location= New York
| isbn= 0871139111
}}
==Further reading==
* Spring 2007 [[Dissent (magazine)|''Dissent'']], "Exporting Democracy: Lessons from Iraq," a symposium featuring [[Paul Berman]], Mitchell Cohen, [[Seyla Benhabib]] and others. [http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=770 Read]
*[http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN3900704228&id=yITOy6Hua64C&printsec=frontcover Google Print]*''Masters of Chaos: The Secret History of the Special Forces'' by Linda Robinson
* ''[[Heavy Metal a Tank Company's Battle to Baghdad (book)|Heavy Metal a Tank Company's Battle to Baghdad]]'' by Captain Jason Conroy and Ron Martz
* ''[[Cobra II|Cobra II : The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq]]'' by Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor
*[[Hans Köchler]], ''The Iraq Crisis and the United Nations. Power Politics vs. the International Rule of Law''. Studies in International Relations, XXVIII. Vienna: I.P.O., 2004, ISBN 3-900704-22-8, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN3900704228&id=yITOy6Hua64C&printsec=frontcover Google Print]
==External links==
*[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&vote=00237&session=2 H.J.Res. 114] U.S. Senate results to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
*[http://www.thestar.com/News/article/220830 Over half a million Iraqis dead, 4 years later, May 2007 after "us surge" monthly death rates not decreasing]
*[http://electroniciraq.net/news/2533.shtml "Fact Sheets: The Lancet Survey:] Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq". (Authors: Professors [[Gilbert Burnham]], M.D., and [[Riyadh Lafta]], M.D., and [[Shannon Doocy]], Ph.D., [[Les Roberts (epidemiologist)|Les Roberts]], Ph.D. Participating institutions: The [[Johns Hopkins University]] [[Bloomberg School of Public Health]], in [[Baltimore, Maryland]], and [[Al Mustansiriya University]], in [[Baghdad]].) ''Electronic Iraq/electronicIraq.net''. Accessed [[May 24]], [[2007]]. ("Electronic Iraq/electronicIraq.net [is] a joint project from [[Kathy Kelly|Voices in the Wilderness]] and [[Electronic Intifada|The Electronic Intifada]].")
*[http://www.comw.org/warreport/ War Report.] More than 5,000 articles, documents and analyses of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, updated four times a week -- Project on Defense Alternatives.
*[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/ CIA’s final report]
*[http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=us_occupation_of_iraq Occupation of Iraq] Timeline at the History Commons
*[http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/12/baghdad.morgue.ap/index.html Morgues so full, bodies turned away]
*[http://www.warincontext.org The War In Context] News aggregator
*[http://usiraq.procon.org/ ProCon's examination of Iraq Invasion]
*[http://www.turkishweekly.net/editorial.php?id=7 by Professor Dr. Sedat Laciner, "Ten Impasses of the Resistance in Iraq"]
*[http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ Amnesty International Report on Iraq]
*[http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE141772003?open&of=ENG-366 Iraq: Amnesty International seeks clarification on house demolitions by US troops in Iraq]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/documents/0,12962,916659,00.html Iraq: full texts of speeches and key documents] archived by ''[[The Guardian]]''. Retrieved [[May 31]], [[2005]].
*[http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE141792003?open&of=ENG-2MD Iraq: Forcible return of refugees and asylum-seekers is contrary to international law]
*[http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE141812003?open&of=ENG-366 Iraq: Tribunal established without consultation]
*[http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE141762003?open&of=ENG-2MD Memorandum on concerns related to legislation introduced by the Coalition Provisional Authority]
*[http://www.costofwar.com/ National Priorities Project Cost of the Iraqi War Estimate]
*[http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE141722003?open&of=ENG-366 Reconstruction must ensure the human rights of Iraqis]
*[http://atlas-real.atlas.uiuc.edu:8080/ramgen/ips/acdis/acdis_iraq_2005.04.20.rm Video Seminar on Iraq Coalition Politics]: [[April 20]], [[2005]], sponsored by the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security at the University of Illinois.
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/day_by_day_coverage/default.stm War in Iraq: Day by Day Guide]
*[http://miejipang.homestead.com/untitled16.html Iraq War NEWS DIGEST-Iraq and the U.S.A.]
*[http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/index.html Iraq Special Weapons News]
*[http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/222/ Attacks on journalists in Iraq] - [[International Freedom of Expression Exchange|IFEX]]
*[http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/040415/oi.shtml Archaeologists Review Loss of Valuables in Museum Looting]
*[http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=1946 by Emre Ozkan and Murat Sogangoz, "Do Talabani and Barzani prefer Civil-War in Iraq?"]
*[http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006/ipp.pdf Iraqi Perspectives Report], [[Joint Center for Operational Analysis]] at [[United States Department of Defense]], March 2006
*[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/ "Frontline: The Dark Side"] PBS documentary on Vice President Dick Cheney's remaking of the Executive and infighting leading up to the war in Iraq
*{{cite news |url = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html |title = Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq |publisher = Fox News |author = Angle, Jim and Liss, Sharon Kehnemui |date = [[2006-06-22]] |accessdate = 2006-07-21}}
*{{cite news |url = http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060622055545.07o4imol.html |title = Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq: US intelligence |publisher = AFP |date = [[2006-06-22]] |accessdate = 2006-07-21}}
*[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm 1999 Desert Crossing War Game to Plan Invasion of Iraq and to Unseat Saddam Hussein]
===Video===
*[http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/60117/ Cheney in '00: Invading Baghdad Would Make Us "An Imperial Power"]
{{Iraq War}}
{{2003 Operations}}
{{2004 Operations}}
{{2005 Operations}}
{{2006 Iraq Operations}}
{{Operations of the Iraq war: 2007}}
{{Operations of the Iraq war: 2008}}
{{Iraq War Coalition troop deployment}}
{{Armed Iraqi Groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War}}
{{Asia in topic|Terrorism in}}
[[Category:2003 Iraq conflict|*]]
[[Category:Operations involving special forces|Operation Iraqi Freedom]]
[[Category:United States-Iraqi relations]]
[[Category:George W. Bush administration controversies]]
[[Category:Invasions]]
[[Category:Wars involving the United Kingdom]]
[[ar:الغزو الأمريكي للعراق]]
[[bg:Война в Ирак (2003)]]
[[ca:Invasió de l'Iraq de 2003]]
[[cs:Válka v Iráku]]
[[cy:Rhyfel Irac]]
[[da:Invasionen af Irak 2003]]
[[de:Irakkrieg]]
[[et:Iraagi sõda]]
[[es:Invasión de Iraq en 2003]]
[[fr:Opération libération de l'Irak]]
[[ko:이라크 전쟁]]
[[hr:Rat u Iraku 2003.]]
[[id:Invasi Irak 2003]]
[[it:Guerra d'Iraq]]
[[he:מלחמת עיראק]]
[[hu:Iraki háború]]
[[mk:Ирачка војна]]
[[nl:Irakoorlog]]
[[ja:イラク戦争]]
[[no:Invasjonen av Irak]]
[[pl:II wojna w Zatoce Perskiej]]
[[pt:Invasão do Iraque]]
[[ro:Invazia Irakului din 2003]]
[[ru:Вторжение в Ирак 2003 года]]
[[simple:2003 invasion of Iraq]]
[[sr:Инвазија на Ирак 2003.]]
[[fi:Irakin sota]]
[[sv:Irakkriget]]
[[ta:ஈராக் மீதான ஆக்கிரமிப்பு, 2003]]
[[vi:Cuộc tấn công Iraq năm 2003]]
[[tr:Irak Savaşı (II.Körfez Savaşı)]]
[[uk:Війна в Іраку]]
[[wa:Guere d' Irak]]
[[yi:איראק מלחמה]]
[[zh:伊拉克战争]]