On March 20, 2003, exactly 20 years ago, the United States began a ground invasion of Iraq with the goal of overthrowing President Saddam Hussein and eliminating any suspected WMD in the oil-rich nation.
US President George W. Bush stated in a televised address that “at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early phases of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to safeguard the world from grave peril.” Air operations had started the previous evening.
However, US forces, who were mostly supported by British forces, never discovered any WMD.
In addition, despite Saddam being apprehended, tried, and executed by hanging, the nation is still severely damaged by war, plagued by economic ruin and political unrest, and ruled by Iranian and American interests.
Questions about why this war was started in the first place still linger in light of the fact that more than 200,000 Iraqi civilians and 4,500 US soldiers were murdered, as well as the fact that the invasion has left the entire area in a state of chaos and instability.
- The case for war
Years before it actually happened, US politicians and ideological leaders started laying the groundwork for the occupation of Iraq.
US President George H.W. Bush, the father of the younger Bush, announced his intention to impose “liberal democracy” in Iraq after Saddam launched an invasion of his oil-rich neighbor Kuwait in 1990. This declaration opened the door for US neoconservative politicians who pushed for Saddam’s overthrow.
Security concerns sparked by the 9/11 attacks in 2001 combined with ideological goals to liberalize and democratize Iraq and the region led to the decision to go to war.
The US-led invasion was also directly related to the demands for Saddam’s ouster made by Iraqi exiles living in the West. Exiles residing in Iran were able to profit from the post-war period and take control of Iraqi politics, though.
- Capturing Baghdad
On March 20, 2003, US, British, and other coalition forces invaded Iraq from Kuwait, swiftly decimating the Iraqi regular military and driving Saddam out of power.
On April 9, three weeks later, US forces took control of Baghdad. Along with Iraqi people, they overturned a statue of Saddam in Firdos Plaza in Baghdad—a momentous occasion that came to symbolize US victory and garnered international media attention.
On May 1, Bush concluded significant combat operations in Iraq by announcing “mission complete” from the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier. Lawlessness was downplayed as not significant by American government authorities despite the fact that it had quickly spread throughout the nation, showing the inability of US troops to restore order.
- No weapons of mass destruction
Saddam was apprehended by US forces prior to the year 2003 while he was camped out close to his Tikrit childhood home. For his involvement in atrocities against humanity and mass murder, he was later prosecuted by an Iraqi court and put to death.
Since then, there has been debate concerning the timing of his execution, which took place on December 30, 2006, which also occurred to be the first day of the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha.
The Bush administration quickly acknowledged that its pre-war claims that Iraq had stocks of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons were baseless after Saddam was captured.
In 2005, a presidential commission found that American intelligence on Iraqi Weapons was wholly inaccurate and that “not one bit” of evidence existed. In the end, it was determined that the testimonies and allegations of defectors and members of the Iraqi National Congress were unsupported.
- Transitional phase
Paul Bremer, the leader of the Coalition Provisional Authority, abolished the Iraqi army and intelligence services in May 2003 and forbade the long-reigning Baath Party from taking part in the process of forming the new government. The choice sent away hundreds of thousands of trained men and left the nation with a security and governance void that wreaked havoc on it for years.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed during the transition from US to Iraqi government in the mid-2000s. Moreover, an insurgency led by al-Qaeda was started, a sectarian civil war broke out, and eventually ISIL rose to power (ISIS)
- Elections, sectarian violence
The Provisional Authority was focused on achieving an ethno-sectarian balance in Iraq after Saddam, who was accused of oppressing the Shia and Kurdish communities, was toppled from power.
The Iraq Governing Council (IGC), the country’s first post-2003 executive body, was chosen using the muhasasa, or sectarian quota system, to ensure proportional government participation among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish communities.
One of the main drawbacks of the muhasasa system was how it reinforced sectarian differences, which still echo throughout Iraq and the region to this day. This was true even though the system offered political and economic power to parties that eventually came to dominate Iraqi politics after 2003.
Iraqis elected their first full-term government in 2005 despite violent outbursts, giving the Shia majority control of parliament. The speaker was a Sunni, the president was a Kurd, and the prime minister was a member of the Shia Muslim majority under the governing structure put in place with the introduction of a new constitution in 2005.
Nouri al-Maliki, the first prime minister, had strong ties to Tehran and connections to armed groups. He dominated Iraqi politics for years. His regime ruled during a time of authoritarian and sectarian laws.
The emergence of sectarian violence throughout the nation was largely caused by the failure of succeeding governments to reach an understanding with the Sunni population of Iraq as well as the existence of corrupt and incompetent state institutions. While violence by followers of Shia religious leader Muqtada al-Sadr increased in the south, Sunni uprisings grew in Anbar and Fallujah.
Some claim that a harsh security response in Sunni communities radicalized many members of the community, some of whom later sided with ISIS. Others claim that several Sunnis were unable to comprehend their loss of power in Iraq, which they had enjoyed under Saddam.
As a result of the region’s lack of security following the US soldiers’ withdrawal in 2011, ISIL tightened its hold. After establishing a so-called “caliphate” over significant portions of the country in 2014, it was ultimately defeated in large part by 2017 following a protracted military war that once again involved the US.
- Uncertainty prevails
In October 2019, the largest protest movement in post-2003 Iraq unseated the government and forced parliament to adopt a new electoral law. Security forces and paramilitary groups killed more than 600 protesters during the uprising and have continued to target activists since then.
The unprecedented demonstrations, which continued for months before coronavirus restrictions were put in place in October 2020, were a response to the suppression of dissent by succeeding governments and the control of paramilitaries affiliated with political parties, both of which have stifled reform and raised the likelihood of civil unrest.
The government in Iraq today, however, was constituted by a coalition that received less than 15% of the vote. The partnership of self-serving political groups and armed factions that have curtailed civil freedoms is what many Iraqis who participated in the protests see.
As a result, many Iraqis now back Shia leader al-Sadr, a self-described Iraqi nationalist, whose militia is responsible for some of the worst acts of brutality in the country’s post-2003 civil conflict.
Twenty years after the invasion that was supposed to usher in a new age, violence between his loyalists and competing Shia factions last August killed 30 dead and demonstrated that, despite the advancements Iraq has made, it still remains essentially unstable.
From Aljazeera:
