HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES II

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES II The Iraqi Insurgency BY RONALD ANGUAS Introduction In March 2003, American forces in the Middle East rolled into Iraq, launching an invasion with the goal of removing dictator Saddam Hussein from power. As the first brigades crossed the border, they anticipated a swift march to the capital and a relatively smooth path to victory. These delusions quickly faded when a number of Iraqi citizens suddenly opened fire on the American soldiers using AK-47 machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers. The limited Iraqi firepower was no match for the fully supplied, well-equipped Americans, and the relatively small group of attackers was quickly subdued. As coalition military forces made progress toward Baghdad, however, they encountered similar skirmishes with Iraqis throughout the country. Far from welcoming the Americans with open arms, many Iraqis fought bitterly to repel the new military presence. Even after Baghdad fell and major combat operations ended, the insurgent attacks continued. The total number of American fatalities in Iraq recently exceeded 2,000, and prospects for peace are still a long way off. With the body count rising, many elected officials have publicly questioned the wisdom of remaining in Iraq. Explanation of the Problem The Goal of the Enemy Since the opening days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the mission to topple Saddam Hussein s regime and restore democracy to Iraq, American and coalition forces have faced daily attacks from insurgents. By slowly increasing the casualty and fatality counts, the insurgents intend to convince the American public that the war is not worth fighting. Attacks targeted against soldiers are undertaken to convince Americans that the conflict in Iraq has become a Vietnam-like quagmire that cannot be won. Civilian contractors are selected as targets in an attempt to force an end to the Iraqi reconstruction efforts. The goal of the insurgents is to force all Western military and financial interests out of Iraq. A Single Day in Iraq Insurgent attacks are a problem that is only getting worse with time. In early 2004, about 25 attacks took place in Iraq on any given day. By the end of the year, however, that number had more than doubled to 60. During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, one particular day saw nearly 150 attacks. The all-time high of 300, however, was reached not surprisingly on the day of Iraq s first democratic elections. Attacks take place with such high frequency that there is hardly time to recover from one attack before another is underway, and there are simply not enough American military personnel on the ground to guard each and every potential target. How Are Attacks Carried Out? Like Vietnam before it, Iraq is not a conventional combat environment. Attacks in Iraq are not carried out by formally organized military battalions. Instead, the insurgents resort to tactics such as car bombs and suicide bombs. A relatively normal looking cargo van could be laden with explosives, and a young adult in a busy restaurant or nightclub could literally be a walking time bomb. Teenagers and even children are often recruited to assist with or carry out such attacks, making it difficult for American and coalition forces to know if they are responding to a wounded child in distress or walking directly into a trap which could kill or seriously injure them. Sadly, however, soldiers often do not realize they have been tricked until it is too late. 1

Former Regime Loyalists The organized Iraqi insurgency is primarily made up of Former Regime Loyalists (FRLs) who supported Saddam Hussein during his dictatorship. These FRLs tend to be former soldiers in Saddam s elite Special Republican Guard who were not killed during the US-led invasion. Also referred to as Ba athists, these supporters of Hussein and his government have likely established a vast financial and information network spanning the entire country of Iraq. While FRLs do not directly carry out all of the attacks on coalition forces, they supply the ideas, resources, and financial backing necessary for others to undertake such heinous operations. Before the fall of his government, Saddam Hussein and his closest advisors purportedly issued directives to Ba ath party supporters, advising them to attack key elements of national infrastructure in order to make the American task of subduing Iraq more difficult. Reflecting on the events in Iraq in the months following the fall of Hussein, it appears this may have been the case. Former Hussein loyalists initially took great care to destroy bridges, oil wells, and power plants, all in the hope of deterring and hindering American forces in their efforts to gain control of Iraq. Recruitment Recruiting militants has been observed to take place in a very systematic fashion. Recruiters locate potential targets and meet with them briefly to gauge their anti-american sentiment. Should the recruit seem interested in joining the insurgency, a second meeting is arranged to further discuss the issue. During this second conversation, recruiters ascertain the level of commitment potential militants display and then select a final group to train in so-called terrorist training camps. At this stage of the process, recruits are advised to move away from all friends and relatives and break all ties with outsiders. Insurgents always possess a cult-like devotion to the cause and are generally prepared to die in suicide attacks. Islamic Revivalists The political climate in Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not a friendly one for most Muslims. Regional extremist Muslim groups have provided local sects with the resources necessary to carry out attacks against American and coalition forces. The Al-Faruq Brigades and the Mujahideen of the Victorious Sect are two such groups that the US intelligence community suspects are aiding extremist insurgents. These organizations routinely use intimidation and scare tactics to accomplish their goals. Roughly six months after US forces began to invade Iraq, a Muslim extremist group aired a video on a Dubai-based television station stating, we want to warn countries of the world for the last time not to send troops into Iraq. Videotaped executions of foreign business workers also instill fear in Western countries working to rebuild Iraq. Syrian and Iranian Involvement The vast majority of insurgent attackers are of Iraqi origin, though a small number of attacks have been directly carried out by foreigners. Foreign governments, however, have been covertly providing money, weapons, and other resources for the insurgency movement. In a statement delivered in December 2004, US General George Casey confirmed that Syria has been providing aid to attackers. When US forces captured several insurgents a few months earlier, they claimed to have been trained in Syria by the notoriously abusive and inhumane Syrian intelligence agency. Of course, the Syrian government denies any involvement with the Iraqi insurgency, and the US has no direct evidence linking any insurgent to Syria. Another group of captured attackers claims to have received support from the Iranian government. Like Syria, Iran denies providing such support. However, the veracity of these denials has yet to be confirmed. History of the Problem Saddam Hussein and the Iran-Iraq War Like most dictators, Saddam Hussein came to power through the democratic process. He was elected in July 1979, only months before neighboring Iran underwent an Islamic revolution. Hussein was opposed to the presence of an Islamic state in such proximity to Iraq and was thus quite hostile toward the new Iranian government. Just a year after coming to power, Hussein found himself engaged in a border dispute with Iran. Eager to assert himself as an aggressive and patriotic leader, he did not hesitate to expand the dispute into all-out war. In the opening days of the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqis easily captured significant amounts of Iranian territory using their superior firepower. While the Iraqi military was concerning itself with Iran, Israel took advantage of the opportunity to halt what it considered an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. In June 1981, the Israeli Air Force launched a 2

brief but effective campaign against a nuclear reactor and various nuclear research facilities in and around Baghdad. Hussein did not expect Israeli involvement in the Iran-Iraq War, and was ultimately forced to reallocate military personnel to prevent Israel from further crippling Iraqi infrastructure. Over the next seven years, something of a stalemate ensued between Iran and Iraq. When a ceasefire was approved by both nations in 1988, neither country had seen a significant amount of territory change hands. Following the war, Iraq had another problem on its hands: a domestic insurrection in the northern part of the country. The Kurds were a distinct ethnic group with a large population in northern Iraq. They desired independence or at least autonomy from Hussein s government, which was growing more oppressive with every passing year. Refusing to assent to Kurdish demands, Saddam Hussein moved to suppress the Kurds, who were legitimate citizens of Iraq. When traditional military force did not quell the insurgency in a rapid fashion, Hussein made the now-infamous decision to attack his fellow Iraqi citizens with a variety of chemical weapons. The attacks did not distinguish insurgents from civilians and ultimately killed nearly 5,000 people. After his capture by American forces in December 2003, Saddam Hussein was charged with numerous human rights violations for the incident. The Persian Gulf War Ever eager to gain power and prestige for Iraq, Saddam Hussein engaged in yet another border dispute in 1990, this time with Kuwait. Making claims based on ancient territorial boundaries, Iraq argued it should have control of the vast Kuwaiti oil fields. Iraq accused Kuwait of deliberately producing excessive amounts of crude oil in order to force prices downward. Kuwait argued that it was exercising its right to produce and sell its own natural resources. However, Iraq was not satisfied. In early August, Iraqi military personnel launched a swift invasion of Kuwait, easily decimating the Kuwaiti opposition and quickly taking control of the oil fields in question. Responding to Hussein s unprovoked attack, the United Nations Security Council moved quickly to intervene. The Security Council passed a series of resolutions demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. The deadline for withdrawal passed without any significant response from Saddam or his military forces. Prepared to enforce the UN resolutions, a broadbased coalition led by the United States began military operations against Iraq. Operation Desert Storm, as it was called, began with a wildly successful air campaign which effectively disabled the Iraqi military infrastructure. Coalition ground forces soon poured into Kuwait, expelling the Iraqi invaders after only six weeks of fighting. American troops subsequently pushed farther, marching into southern Iraq. Realizing he could not defeat the vastly superior coalition military presence, Saddam Hussein agreed to UN terms for a cease-fire in April 1991, only a few months after Operation Desert Storm began. After signing the cease-fire, Hussein again decided to move against minority populations in his own country. He launched military attacks to put down a Kurdish rebellion in the north and a Shia rebellion in the south. In response to these attacks, US and coalition forces established no-fly zones in both portions of the country. These zones, enforced by American and British air patrols until the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, effectively prevented Hussein from carrying out further atrocities against his fellow Iraqi citizens. The Aftermath of Operation Desert Storm After Operation Desert Storm, the United Nations remained very concerned about Saddam Hussein and his past history of aggression. The Security Council mandated that Iraq halt research and development of any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Hussein s use of the chemical attacks against the Kurds revealed that he possessed a relatively advanced chemical weapons program and was willing to readily make use of such a program. The Security Council required Iraq to submit to periodic inspections by UN weapons inspectors. Although Iraq claimed such inspections would violate its sovereignty, Hussein assented to the UN requirements in order to maintain peace. The United Nations enforced strict embargoes on all financial transactions with Iraq. Iraqi Non-Compliance Reiterating his claims that the presence of UN weapons inspectors violated Iraqi sovereignty, Iraq began to meddle with UN inspections in the mid-1990s. By 1999, the United States and Great Britain found it necessary to launch sporadic air strikes against specific targets which they believed were research and development sites for prohibited weapons programs. Infuriated by the attacks, Saddam Hussein expelled all UN weapons inspectors and closed the borders to further inspections. The 3

US and the UN sat by for some time and did not directly respond to Hussein s actions. After President Bush launched the global war on terror in early 2002, he began to press the issues of Iraqi weapons inspections once again. In the 2002 State of the Union address, Bush called Iraq part of an axis of evil, reminding some listeners of Ronald Reagan s denunciation of the Soviet Union as an evil empire. President Bush pressed the UN for a resolution requiring the return of weapons inspectors as mandated by the post-gulf War resolutions. Iraq reluctantly assented, and after the first round of inspections, the inspection team reported that Iraq was still in violation of the post-gulf War resolutions because it had not completely destroyed its chemical and biological weapons systems. The United States strongly objected to the Iraqi violations and argued that Iraq had never been in compliance with the 1991 resolutions. President Bush proposed UN-sanctioned military action against Iraq in response to its non-compliance. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix argued that more time was necessary to adequately ascertain the scope of Saddam s weapons programs, and the Security Council subsequently rejected a US-based proposal to take action. As such, President Bush assembled a coalition of the willing and prepared to invade Iraq without the support of the UN. Coalition Military Action Despite strong opposition from France, Germany, and Russia, the United States and Great Britain amassed a large military presence in the Persian Gulf. When the Security Council failed to act, US-led forces began an invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, troops barreled across the border. Within a month, major cities in northern and southern Iraq fell to American and British forces. The siege of Baghdad was also swift and decisive, but Saddam Hussein remained at large in the months after the capital was subdued. On May 1, 2004, President Bush traveled to an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf and declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. Iraqi Reconstruction Recent Developments Even after major combat operations concluded, the American mission in Iraq was far from over. The US faced three significant challenges: quelling the Iraqi insurrection, establishing a democratic form of government, and rebuilding the infrastructure that had decayed under Saddam Hussein s regime. During the summer of 2004, US and coalition forces created the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the primary leadership entity within Iraq. U.S. Administrator Paul Bremer was named head of the CPA. To begin the process of creating a democratic government, the CPA created a 25-member Iraqi Government, a representative body with seats distributed among different religious and ethnic groups. Under Hussein s government, certain religious and ethnic minorities, notably the Shia and Kurds, were denied a voice in the political process. The Iraqi Governming Council made representation for such groups a high priority. The first task of the Council was the development of a democratic constitution. Iraqi insurgents constantly attacked members of the Governing Council in an attempt to intimidate them and prevent the rise of democratic government. Saddam Hussein was captured by American forces in late December 2003. His capture may have provided a psychological victory for the Americans, but it did nothing to weaken the insurgency. The Iraqi Governing Council successfully established a constitution for the nation and organized the first national elections in decades. These elections took place in early 2005, in the midst of a barrage of insurgent attacks. Even with a democratically elected government in place, Iraq is far from self-sustaining. Without American military support, many have argued that the Iraqi government will collapse and possibly be replaced by another regime hostile to the United States. Congressional Action On October 10, 2002, Congress passed HJ Res 114, authorizing President Bush to use US armed forces against Iraq. The President used the passage of this resolution as a mandate for an Iraqi invasion. As time went on and the subjugation of the Iraqi insurgency appeared to be more difficult than originally anticipated, many members of Congress publicly questioned the wisdom of passing HJ Res 114 in 2002. Despite any hesitations members may have, Congress has passed numerous bills appropriating hundreds of billions of dollars to the Iraq war over the last two years. Congress has not passed any specific legislation aimed at ending the insurgency, but it has appropriated funds for the military conflict in general. 4

Focus of the Debate Conservative View President Bush has repeatedly stated that United States must remain in Iraq until the nation is stabilized and an Iraqi army can be trained to keep peace. The terrorists and insurgents are trying to get us to retreat. Their goal is to get us to leave before Iraqis have had a chance to show the region what a government that is elected and truly accountable to its citizens can do for its people, Bush said in his weekly radio address on June 18, 2005. Time and again, the Iraqi people have defied the skeptics who claim they are not up to the job of building a free society. I am confident that Iraqis will continue to defy the skeptics as they build a new Iraq that represents the diversity of their nation and assumes greater responsibility for their own security. And when they do, our troops can come home with the honor they have earned. Republicans in Congress agree with the president, and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is set to pass legislation giving the Pentagon $45 billion to conduct combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The president has told Congress that there is currently no timetable for troop withdrawals. Timetables simply send the wrong message. They send the wrong message to the terrorists. They send the wrong message to the Iraqi people. They send the wrong message to our troops who are serving admirably and working to complete an important mission, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. Liberal View Democrats claim that the Iraqi insurgency is taking place because President Bush entered Iraq without a clear strategy to win. They believe American motives for entering Iraq in the first place were improper because there was no proven link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, nor were there any weapons of mass destruction actually present in Iraq. Now that troops have been committed in two theaters, Democrats are calling for an organized exit strategy in which a peacekeeping role is transferred to an Iraqi army. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced a resolution in mid-june 2005 that urges the Bush administration to give Congress a time frame for achieving military goals in Iraq and bringing home troops. Even with the support of fellow Democrats, Feingold is unlikely to see his resolution pass in either chamber given that Republicans hold a majority in both houses of Congress. Interest Groups Perspective The Heritage Foundation The Heritage Foundation believes there is slow but steady progress being made in Iraq. James Philips, a Heritage official, holds an optimistic view for the future of Iraq. He believes the insurrection will slowly fade over time if America demonstrates a commitment to maintaining a presence in Iraq. Philips, however, is concerned about several thorny issues that remain, notably the role of Islam in government and the formula for sharing oil revenues. The United States must play a firm but patient supporting role in helping Iraqis build a secure and democratic future, wrote an anonymous Heritage Foundation official in an executive memorandum. Progress has been made, and many important trends are headed in the right direction. Amnesty International (AI) Amnesty International is very much concerned over allegations that American forces were cruel in their treatment of civilians during the initial invasion of Iraq. The organization is also dismayed with additional evidence of inhumane treatment of Iraqi prisoners by American military forces. AI believes that the newly installed government must devote resources to the protection of minority groups in Iraq and the humane treatment of prisoners. Possible Solutions Increased Military Force One possible solution to the problem in Iraq is to increase American military presence. Although troop numbers in Iraq are quite high, an even larger number may be necessary to fully stabilize Iraq. Objections from across 5

America are likely to be strong if another troop deployment is issued, as many voters are already asking when US forces will begin to withdraw. Diplomatic options can also be exercised, possibly convincing other nations to commit troops to the Iraqi peacekeeping mission, thus increasing the overall troop count but minimizing backlash at home. Many foreign nations, including traditional US allies, are reluctant to commit troops at all because they fear reprisals from extremist Islamic groups and political ramifications in their own nations. Withdrawal Iraqi Freedom. As with most complex international situations, this one has no easy answer. Yet the situation is a critical one, and a secure Iraq is now vital to the future security of the United States. Each and every day, American men and women in uniform lose their lives or find themselves severely injured as a result of Iraqi insurgent attacks. It is the responsibility of the Congress to debate the issue and attempt to quell the insurgency for the benefit of all Americans. Glossary Another potential solution is to begin a troop withdrawal. The president and other Republicans have argued that pulling out American forces at this point will cause the fragile Iraqi government to collapse and be replaced with a potentially hostile, anti-american government. American withdrawal, combined with a comprehensive training program for creating an Iraqi army, however, may hold promise in the months and years to come. Any removal of US forces may lead to a destabilization of Iraq and indeed the entire Middle East, so such action must be considered carefully and combined with a comprehensive foreign policy stance if it is to be effective. Questions a Bill Should Address How long should American troops remain in Iraq? What can be done to help Iraq build its own stable government and military? If troops withdraw, what can be done to ensure more stability in the region than currently exists? How can the insurgency be stopped or at least contained? How can the US win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? Should the US ask for military and financial support from other nations? From the UN? Summary and Conclusion The Iraqi insurgency has been a problem for coalition forces since the opening days of Operation insurgency - an instance of rebellion. In this case, Iraqis are rising up against US forces they see as occupiers Iran-Iraq War - war between the two neighboring nations that occurred in the early 1980s, shortly after Saddam Hussein came to power. After the war, Hussein used chemical weapons against his own citizens Kurds - members of a pastoral and agricultural people inhabiting the transnational region of Kurdistan in southwest Asia Shia - members of the branch of Islam that regards Ali and his descendants as the legitimate successors to Muhammad and rejects the first three Muslim religious leaders Bibliography Dillon, Dana and Melissa Parham. The Iraqi Mafia: An Evolving Insurgency. The Heritage Foundation. <http:/ /www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed011504b.cfm> January 15, 2004 Iraq. Amnesty International. <http://web.amnesty.org/ web/web.nsf/print/> 2004 Iraq. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. 2004 Iraqi Insurgency. Global Security Online. <http:// www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/ iraq_insurgency.htm> June 16, 2005 6

Loven, Jennifer. Bush: Pulling Out of Iraq Not an Option. The Associated Press. <http:// news.yahoo.com/> June 18, 2005 Phillips, James. Slow But Steady Progress in Iraq. The Heritage Foundation. <http://www.heritage.org> April 15, 2005 Yost, Pete. Democrats Urge Inquiry on Bush, Iraq. The Associated Press. <http://news.yahoo.com/> June 17, 2005 7