2003 Invasion of Iraq

This article covers invasion specifics. For general information see: Iraq War, Post-invasion Iraq.

Opinion and legality

See Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq war

Related Topics:
Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq war

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Countries supporting and opposing the invasion

Support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq included 49 nations, a group that was frequently referred to as the "coalition of the willing." These nations provided combat troops, support troops, and logistical support for the invasion. The nations contributing combat forces were, roughly: United States (250,000), United Kingdom (45,000), South Korea (3,500), Australia (2,000), Denmark (200), and Poland (184). Ten other countries offered small numbers of non-combat forces, mostly either medical teams and specialists in decontamination. In several of these countries a majority of the public was opposed to the war. For example, in Spain polls reported at one time a 90% opposition to the war. In most other countries less than 10% of the populace supported an invasion of Iraq without a specific go-ahead from the UN. http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/survey.asp?id=10. Even in the US only approximately 33% of the population said they were in favor of a unilateral invasion http://www.gallup-international.com/download/GIA%20press%20release%20Iraq%20Survey%202003.pdf.

Related Topics:
Occupation of Iraq - Coalition of the willing - Spain

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Opposition to the invasion led to global protests. In many Middle Eastern and Islamic countries, many protesters supported Saddam Hussein, but protesters in the United States and Europe generally did not. On the government level, the war was criticized by Canada, Belgium, Russia, France, The People's Republic of China, Germany, Switzerland, The Vatican, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Mexico, the Arab League, the African Union and others. Though many nations opposed the war, no foreign government openly supported Saddam Hussein, and none volunteered any assistance to the Iraqi side.

Related Topics:
Opposition to the invasion - Global protests - Canada - Belgium - Russia - France - The People's Republic of China - Germany - Switzerland - The Vatican - India - Indonesia - Malaysia - Brazil - Mexico - Arab League - African Union

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud said the U.S. military could not use Saudi Arabia's soil in any way to attack Iraq. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59796,00.html After ten years of U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, cited among reasons by Saudi-born Osama bin Laden for his al-Qaeda attacks on America on September 11, 2001, most of U.S. forces were withdrawn in 2003. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-08-28-ustroops-saudiarabia_x.htm According to the New York Times, the invasion secretly received support from Saudi Arabia. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-War-Saudis.html

Related Topics:
Prince Saud - Osama bin Laden - Al-Qaeda - September 11 - New York Times - Saudi Arabia

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Legality of the invasion

U.S. law

Under the United States Constitution, presidents do not have authority to declare war. This power is granted exclusively to Congress, and there is no provision in the Constitution for its delegation, although under the War Powers Act of 1973, the president can send troops to a country without congress's consent for 60-90 days. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it cannot be superseded except by amendment to itself. On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) submitted to the House International Relations committee a proposed declaration which read, "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the government of Iraq." It was rejected.{{ref|Paul}} Citing several factors, including unresolved issues from the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration claimed intrinsic authority to engage Iraq militarily{{ref|BushAides}}, and Congress delegated its war powers to the President{{ref|SenateApproves}}; from this point of view, the invasion of Iraq, while a war, may therefore be considered a police action commenced by the executive, like the Korean war.

Related Topics:
United States Constitution - Granted exclusively to Congress - Supreme law of the land - October 3 - 2002 - Ron Paul - 1991 - Gulf War - Police action - Korean war

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

International law

Resolution 1441, drafted and accepted unanimously the year before the invasion, threatened "serious consequences" to Iraq in case Iraq did not comply with all conditions. Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France made clear in a joint statement that this did not authorize the use of force but a further resolution was needed. This was also the position of the UK and the US at the time the resolution was decided. On the day of the vote the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, said that in the event of a "further breach" by Iraq, Resolution 1441 would require that "the matter will return to the Council for discussions."http://www.un.int/usa/02_187.htm

Related Topics:
Resolution 1441 - Russia - People's Republic of China - France

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Until a few days before the war, it was the position of the UK, the main US ally in the war, that a further resolution would be desirable before the UK would go to war.

Related Topics:
UK - US

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some have said that the US and other coalition governments' invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked assault on an independent country which breached international law. Under Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." This is known as the "Prohibition of Aggression." For the use of force other than in self defence, it is absolute without the positive sanction of the security council under Article 42. Resolution 1441 was not intended by China, Russia and France to authorise war. The coalition formed around the USA argued that another understanding of the resolution is possible, although Kofi Annan, speaking on behalf of the UN charter, declared: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Bush administration argued that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion, in addition to Resolution 1441, gave legal authority to use "all necessary means," which is diplomatic code for going to war. This war ended with a cease fire instead of a permanent peace treaty. Their view was that Iraq had violated the terms of the cease-fire by breaching two key conditions and thus made the invasion of Iraq a legal continuation of the earlier war. If a war can be reactivated ten years after the fact, it would imply that any nation that has ever been at war that ended in a cease-fire (such as Korea) could face war for failing to meet the conditions of the cease-fire. Such is the purpose of using a cease-fire agreement in place of a peace treaty; the resumption of war is the penalty for, and thus deterrent of, engaging in the prohibited action(s). For instance, in WWII, the state of war with Germany did not end until 19 October 1951 and with Japan, not until 28 April 1952http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=391&invol=936.

Related Topics:
1991 invasion - Resolution 1441 - All necessary means - Korea - 19 October - 1951 - 28 April - 1952

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Since the majority of the United Nations security council members (both permanent and rotating) did not support the attack, it appears that they viewed the attack as invalid under any resolution still in effect in March, 2003. Both Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General of the United Nations, and former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well as several nations, say that the attack violated international law as a war of aggression since it lacked the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize military force, and was not an act of defence, and so violated the UN charter. However, none have called for the security council to consider sanctions against the United States or the other nations involved, both because of an effort to restore warmer relationships with the US, and because the attempt would be futile since the US has a veto in the Security Council.

Related Topics:
Kofi Annan - Boutros Boutros-Ghali - International law - U.N. Security Council

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The United States and United Kingdom claimed, and continue to claim, that it was a legal action which they were within international law to undertake. Some in the media have called the good faith of the Security Council into question on this matter. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/10/do1001.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/10/ixop.html http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110005652 One argument is that the United Nations itself, along with the three opponents of the Iraq War on the Security Council, France, Russia, and China, all benefited financially (in some cases, perhaps illegally) from transactions with the Saddam Hussein regime under the Oil for Food program; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2757797.stm and that the leaders of these three countries, along with Kofi Annan, fought against a second UN resolution not out of higher principle but in order to keep these contracts. Additionally, the resistance of the Security Council and the UN as a whole to the invasion of Iraq has been attributed to Anti-Americanism and a resentment of the cultural and economic dominance of the USA. In the case of France, it has also been attributed an attempt to court the Arab world and its local Muslim population. http://www.time.com/time/columnist/krauthammer/article/0,9565,661053,00.html

Related Topics:
Oil for Food program - Anti-Americanism - Arab - Muslim

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On 28 April 2005, the UK government published the full advice given by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on 7 March 2003 on the legality of the war. The publication of this document followed the leaking of the summary to the press the day before. In a Labour press conference, Tony Blair responded to a question from journalist Jon Snow asking whether the full report could be published by saying 'we may as well, you've seen most of it already'. In the document, Lord Goldsmith weighs the different arguments on whether military action against Iraq would be legal without a second UN Resolution. Saying that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action," it clearly stated that invasion for the purpose of regime change was illegal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/05/01/do0101.xml

Related Topics:
28 April - 2005 - Attorney General - Lord Goldsmith - 7 March - 2003 - Tony Blair - Jon Snow

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Downing Street memo

On 1 May 2005, a related UK document known as the Downing Street memo, detailing the minutes of a meeting on 26 July 2002, was apparently leaked to The Times. British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman has called the document "nothing new." The document corroborates the information in the full advice of Lord Goldsmith: "The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.," and states furthermore 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." and that "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.." On 5 May, John Conyers and 89 members of congress asked George W. Bush, in a formal letter, to answer some questions about the document, including whether he or anyone in his administration disputes its accuracy. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/ The Bush Administration has stated that they will not answer the questions.

Related Topics:
1 May - 2005 - Downing Street memo - 26 July - 2002 - The Times - Tony Blair - 5 May - John Conyers - George W. Bush

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Call for British investigation into legality

On 22 May 2005, the British government declined a request from the families of soldiers killed in Iraq for an investigation into the legality of the war. The families are now seeking a judicial review of the request. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4567655.stm http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0505220051may22,1,2838689.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Related Topics:
22 May - 2005 - British

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Opposition view of the invasion

See Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq war

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Those who opposed the war in Iraq did not regard Iraq's violation of UN resolutions to be a valid case for the war, since no single nation has the authority, under the UN Charter, to judge Iraq's compliance to UN resolutions and to enforce them. Furthermore, critics argued that the US was applying double standards of justice, noting that other nations such as Israel are also in breach of UN resolutions and have nuclear weapons; this argument is not a black and white matter, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/2384905.stm, as some claim that Iraq's history of actually using chemical weapons (against Iran and the Kurdish population in Iraq) suggested at the time that Iraq was a far greater threat. Others claim, also, that this contradicts previous U.S. policy, since the US was one of many nations that supplied chemical weapon precursors, even when well aware of what it was being used for.

Related Topics:
UN Charter - Israel

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Although Iraq was known to have pursued an active nuclear weapons development program previously, as well as to have tried to procure materials and equipment for their manufacture, these weapons and material have yet to be discovered. President Bush's reference to Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium in Africa in his 2003 State of the Union address are by now commonly considered as having been based on forged documents (see Yellowcake forgery).

Related Topics:
Uranium - State of the Union address - Yellowcake forgery

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~