Presentation Transcript

1. U.S.A. Intervention in Iraqin 2003

   Students name : Ana-Maria Radu Andreea-Catalina Maria Professor Coordinator: ArkadiuszKotliṅski Poland,Polkowice2013
2. Iraq Map
3. What are the causes of the Iraq War of 2003-2011? The US attacked Iraq in 2003 based on either misformation or disinformation, and the stated reasons have changed over time.  The Initial Justification : Weapons of Mass DestructionThe primary reason given by the administration of George W. Bush was that Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, was engaged in the production or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). These are nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons (examples are the anthrax letter attacks in the US and the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo--neither of which had any connection to Iraq). It was suggested that Hussein might provide these weapons to terrorists to attack the US. He had already used chemical weapons sold to him by the US against Iran, and also against Iraqi Kurds. Before the war UN inspectors announced they had found no evidence of WMDs, despite unfettered access. After the war was under way, additional investigation concluded Saddam did not have WMDs.  The war continued, however, because the occupation forces of the US were attacked by Iraqi guerrillas, many ironically supported by Iran, Iraq's enemy in the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). The US supported a new democratic government within Iraq, which was opposed by various Islamic groups that traditionally held power in the country. Other factions sought to aggrandize their share of the power to be had in the new political system.  It was suggested early on the conflict was predominantly an attempt by the US to control the flow of oil from Iraq, one of the largest petroleum producers in the Middle East.
4. Secondary Justification: Fostering a Democracy in IraqInitially when the US commenced Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, it was a war against the regime in Iraq; to remove Saddam from power, as the US had failed to do in 1991. The goal of the 1991 operation was to drive Saddam from Kuwait, at which the US and its allies succeeded. When no WMDs were found, the US asserted that its mission in Iraq was two-fold: to create a modern democracy and to stop the persistent genocides that took place in that country. The US enfranchised the Shiite Majority, provided for Kurdish autonomy in the North, and assembled a Constitution for the entire Iraqi population. This is in stark contrast to Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons on his own population and was responsible for committing genocide against the Shiite Arabs, Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Azeri, Assyrians, Yazidi, Bahai'i, and Chaldeans among others. Alleged CausesThe Iraq War has numerous alleged causes.
5. Weapons of Mass DestructionAnswer 1: Saddam attacked Kuwait in an attempt to take over control of the entire Middle East. He "flexed his muscles" to see if the world would allow him to "expand". The world refused to allow that and Saddam was pushed back and sanctions were placed on him and his military. Saddam was instructed that he could not sell more oil to fund his military and that any oil that he sold was to be used to feed and medically treat the residents of Iraq. His air force was restricted to specific areas and other specific sanctions were imposed, including but not limited to sanctions regarding the production, storage and use of missiles, chemical weapons and nuclear devices. Almost immediately, Saddam started selling oil at a discount to Russia, France and others, making the U.N. sanctions ineffective. Intelligence reports indicated that Saddam was trying to build nuclear devices and that he had chemical weapons. In fact, Saddam claimed that he would use chemical weapons against an invading force if we tried to enforce the U.N. sanctions. Under the circumstance, there was no option but to remove him from power. France, Russia and a few others were, of course, unwilling to go along with the U.N. mandate to remove him from power, because they did not want to lose their supply of cheap oil. There is still strong evidence that Saddam and/or his military leaders moved his weapons out of the country, into Syria before the war began.
6. Answer 2: Though the common belief for the cause of the Iraq war is the want of oil, it is because of false information delivered to the President and Congress. The CIA had information from an "Undisclosed Source" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.  Answer 3: We invaded Iraq because the leader at the time was telling the world that he had WMDs (Weapons of mass destruction). He wanted to risk the US bombing the country again but did not expect a full on invasion. If he had had WMDs then he would have used them on our troops when we invaded but did not. After a full investigation and the death of the leader we confirmed that they had no weapons of mass destruction but the war still continued it is now known Saddam had no WMDs. UN inspectors had full cooperation with the Iraq military, and were allowed to look wherever they wanted. They reported no evidence of any weapons program could be found, but we refused to let facts dissuade us from our plans. 
7. Oil and Petroleum ControlAnswer 1: Because the U.S wants to conquer Iraq's petroleum. President Bush wants all the oil and little riches from Iraq.  Answer 2: Saudi Arabia had been asking the US for a long time to leave their country, but we depend on oil like an alcoholic depends on a drink. This made one particularly radical man named Osama bin Laden angry and he hatched several terrorist attack plans against America, the most devastating being the attack on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. Then he went into hiding in Afghanistan. President Bush was angry about the whole thing and vowed to hunt down bin Laden, so we declared war on Iraq. The current spin on Iraq is that we're there to instill democracy and show other countries that America's way is best whether they like it or not, all while ousting dictators.  Answer 3: Mainly oil and the fear of nuclear weapons and other WMDs.  9/11 and Combating Terrorism Answer 1: There are a multitude of reasons for the Iraq War. First, following the attack on the US in 2001, is the overriding concern to eliminate the terrorist training grounds in that region of the world. The first ones to be eliminated were in Afghanistan. Once the Taliban in Afghanistan were no longer a threat, i.e. no longer actively cultivating and training al Qaeda terrorists, the next most threatening training areas were in Iraq and Iran. Because there was an abundance of further information of the existence of non-conventional weapons in Iraq and the likelihood that they would very soon be in the hands of al Qaeda terrorist, Iraq was the next target. This is the "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) rationale that is so often cited. Right or wrongly, the US Government has taken the battle to the terrorists in those areas and not on US soil. 
8. Actions of Iraq in Years PriorAnswer 1: Another reason is that the leader Saddam Hussein, was using chemical biological weapons on the citizens of Iraq. We stepped in to stop it! Answer 2: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and their unwillingness to obey the conditions of their surrender or cease fire that they agreed to afterwards.  Expansion of American Regional InfluenceAnswer 1: The real reason we are fighting in Iraq is to try and form a republic in the heartland of Islam hoping that it would be a moderating force against radical Islam. The reason so many neighboring countries send insurgents to disrupt this process is from either ignorance or greed. On the ignorance side of things, young Muslim men are being told that they can fight in a holy war to prevent an "American Form of Government" from invading Islam. In truth, I think we in America would feel better if the new Iraqi Government were formed like ours, but we know better than to try, so we are hoping Iraq can form a new form of Republic with a Muslim agenda. Personally I don't understand why Iraq doesn't look to Turkey for assistance in setting up a successful government with a Muslim agenda. Answer 2: The administration's interest in that particular region of the world.
9. Removal of Saddam Hussein or Iraqi Benefit Answer 1: Initially when the US commenced Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, it was a war against the country of Iraq; to remove Saddam from power. Iraq collapsed quickly, as it (its forces) did during Desert Storm (within weeks) in January and February of 1991.  Answer 2: There is NO WAR "against the country of Iraq" since Saddam's removal from office. Currently, although called a war by the press, it is a law enforcement function; in which LAW, ORDER, and STABILITY is being (attempted) restored to the nation. Terrorists, Insurgents etc. are being hunted by the use of WANTED POSTERS, and other forms of media...to be arrested (or killed), tried in a court of law, and then imprisoned or executed, or set free if acquitted. Answer 3: Ever since no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found, America has claimed that its mission in Iraq is two-fold, to create a modern democracy and to stop the persistent genocides that took place in that country. The United States enfranchised the Shiite Majority, provided for Kurdish autonomy in the North, and assembled a Constitution for the entire Iraqi population. This is in stark contrast to Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons on his own population and was responsible for committing genocide against the Shiite Arabs, Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Azeri, Assyrians, Yazidi, Bahai'i, and Chaldeans among others.
10. Conspiracies and Longer Historical Outlooks Answer 1: The United States claimed that Iraq was involved in the production of weapons of mass destruction. This reasoning was totally discredited to no one's surprise but the United States administration. That leaves us with the obvious answer 1) The US Arms Lobby needs to have a war going on to make a profit. 2) Iraq is a major supplier of oil to Europe and this has forced up the price of European oil. Europe is a competitor of the United States in the world market so the United States will end up in a stronger position competitively speaking. There are probably a thousand other reasons the US invaded but the fact that Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator had absolutely nothing to do with it if you take into account the number of dictators that the USA has financed and supported over the years. Answer 2: The driving force to the Iraq War was Dick Cheney and oil friend executives engaged in the oil business who had been attempting to get back into the mid-east oil business for more than 25 years. The primary reason the US and UK had lost this business was a result of them not adequately distributing the Iraq, Iran, and Libya government, their share of the profit. For example, in 1952 Iran decided to nationalize the oil which had been under control of UK oil companies. Shortly afterwards, the UK and US formed a coup to assassinate the leader. Since that time, the people in those countries have formed a hatred of the US and UK. Also recognize that the Bush family came into the oil related business when Prescott Bush was involved with Dresser Industries which later became Dresser-Rand was purchased by Halliburton in order to get Kellogg in 1998. Prescott was on the Dresser Board of Directors. George Bush 1 use to work for Dresser. US and UK Sanctions started sometime in the late 70's. During that time span, France, Germany, and Russia retained a relationship. That's the reason they voted against the invasion into Iraq. It all comes down to Cheney's secret meetings associated their greed for money and oil. 
11. One way to stimulate economic growth is to engage in war. As various trade agreements and business tax incentives permitted US companies to move manufacturing and jobs to foreign countries, the US began a downward economic spiral. Engaging in war was a way to temporarily reverse that trend. We don't know who attended Vice President Dick Cheney's secret energy cabal in 2001, or what the topic concerned, which permits us to engage in free speculation. I believe his Texas oil buddies made preliminary invasion plans to void Iraq's oil contracts with France, Germany, and Russia. The US was unable to control Iraq's oil distribution through UN food for oil sanctions, so we launched a war. The excuse that Iraq was building WMDs and was involved in the 9/11 attacks was information for the Bush administration paid Chalabi and his associates, and was known at the time to be false. 50 years ago today (as I write this), President Eisenhower warned us against the military/industrial complex. We have not paid sufficient heed to his warning, in that the Iraq war was the first war fought by the US without congressional spending oversight. More money flowed into the hands of private contractors than in any previous US conflict. Fraud and corruption ran rampant, with billions of dollars of US public funds still unaccounted for. We used our military personnel, who earn around $25,000 per year, to train private contractors earning $150,000 per year to do their jobs. There are numerous other examples of waste and abuse. The war was a gravy train for many US companies, and the administration did its level best to hide the true costs off the books. No one really knows the truth of this war and by the polls of the U.S. citizens there are more than half that don't trust the President. Bush entered the war on the pretense of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" but thus far has not shown any proof this ever existed. 
12. Preparations for war 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". Bush began formally making his case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq in his 12 September 2002 address to the UN Security Council. President George W. Bush addresses the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on the issues concerning Iraq Thursday, September 12 2002. Present on the picture are also: up left - Koffi Annan the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the time (from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2006). up center - Jan Kavan - the President of the United Nations General Assembly at the time (from 2002 until 2003)
13. Key U.S. allies in NATO, such as the United Kingdom, agreed with the U.S. actions, while France and Germany were critical of plans to invade Iraq, arguing instead for continued diplomacy and weapons inspections. After considerable debate, the UN Security Council adopted a compromise resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections and promised "serious consequences" for non-compliance. Security Council members France and Russia made clear that they did not consider these consequences to include the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi government. 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. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and set up inspections by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Hussein accepted the resolution on 13 November and inspectors returned to Iraq under the direction of UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.
14. As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses. UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction" or significant quantities of proscribed items. UNMOVIC did supervise the destruction of a small number of empty chemical rocket warheads, 50 liters of mustard gas that had been declared by Iraq and sealed by UNSCOM in 1998, and laboratory quantities of a mustard gas precursor, along with about 50 Al-Samoud missiles of a design that Iraq stated did not exceed the permitted 150 km range, but which had travelled up to 183 km in tests. Shortly before the invasion, UNMOVIC stated that it would take "months" to verify Iraqi compliance with resolution 1441. U.S. President George W. Bush meets with his top advisors on 19 March 2003 just before the invasion.
15. In October 2002 the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". 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. The U.S. government engaged in an elaborate domestic public relations campaign to market the war to its citizens. Americans overwhelmingly believed Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction: 85% said so, even though the inspectors had not uncovered those weapons. Of those who thought Iraq had weapons sequestered somewhere, about half responded that said weapons would not be found in combat. By February 2003, 64% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Hussein from power. The Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division (SAD) teams, consisting of the 2/504 PIR and the 7th special forces group were the first U.S. forces to enter Iraq, in July 2002, before the main invasion. Once on the ground, they prepared for the subsequent arrival of U.S. Army Special Forces to organize the Kurdish Peshmerga. This joint team (called the Northern Iraq Liaison Element (NILE)) combined to defeat Ansar al-Islam, a group with ties to al-Qaeda, in Iraqi Kurdistan. This battle was for control of the territory that was occupied by Ansar al-Islam and took place before the invasion. It was carried out by Paramilitary Operations Officers from SAD and the Army's 10th Special Forces Group. This battle resulted in the defeat of Ansar and the capture of a chemical weapons facility at Sargat. Sargat was the only facility of its type discovered in the Iraq war.
16. SAD teams also conducted missions behind enemy lines to identify leadership targets. These missions led to the initial air strikes against Hussein and his generals. Although the strike against Hussein was unsuccessful in killing him, it effectively ended his ability to command and control his forces. Strikes against Iraq's generals were more successful and significantly degraded the Iraqi command's ability to react to, and maneuver against the U.S.-led invasion force. SAD operations officers were also successful in convincing key Iraqi Army officers into surrendering their units once the fighting started. NATO member Turkey refused to allow the U.S. forces across its territory into northern Iraq. Therefore, joint SAD and Army Special forces teams and the Pershmerga were the entire Northern force against the Iraqi army. They managed to keep the northern divisions in place rather than allowing them to aid their colleagues against the U.S.-led coalition force coming from the south. Four of these CIA officers were awarded the Intelligence Star for their actions. In the 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush said "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs". On 5 February 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations General Assembly, continuing U.S. efforts to gain UN authorization for an invasion. His presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of amobile biological weapons laboratory. However, this information was based on claims of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi codenamed "Curveball", an Iraqi emigrant living in Germany who later admitted that his claims had been false.
17. Powell also presented evidence alleging Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda. As a follow-up to Powell’s presentation, the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a 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 US, UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution. Opposition to the invasion coalesced in the worldwide 15 February 2003 anti-war protest that attracted 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. February 16, 2003: An elderly American woman raises her fist in opposition to her country's imminent invasion of Iraq. On February 15, an estimated 6,000,000 to 10,000,000 people in over 60 countries around the world took to the streets to show their opposition to what they considered a war of oppression. 60,000–200,000 protesters of various ages demonstrated in San Francisco, 15 February 2003.
18. In March 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, and Italy began preparing for the invasion of Iraq, with a host of public relations and military moves. In his 17 March 2003 address to the nation, Bush demanded that Hussein and his two sons, Uday and Qusay, surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline. But the U.S. began the bombing of Iraq on the day before the deadline expired. On 18 March 2003, the bombing of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Poland, Australia, and Denmark began. Unlike the first Gulf War or the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), this war had no explicit UN authorisation. The UK House of Commons held a debate on going to war on 18 March 2003 where the government motion was approved 412 to 149. The vote was a key moment in the history of the Blair administration, as the number government MPs that rebelled against the vote was the greatest since the repeal of the Corn Laws. Three government ministers resigned in protest at the war, John Denham, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the then Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook. In a passionate speech to the House of Commons after his resignation, he said, "What has come to trouble me is the suspicion that if the 'hanging chads' of Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq." During the debate it was stated that the Attorney General had advised that the war was legal under previous UN Resolutions.
19. - March 20 start of the operation "Freedom in Iraq", initially embodied by American raids on Baghdad and penetration US-British forces in the south. - April 9: American troops enter Baghdad and the regime of Saddam Hussein is removed from power. - May 1: U.S. President George W. Bush, decreed termination "major operations" but announces the continuation of the "war against terrorism". It created an international stabilization force which includes 156,000 troops, including 148,000 Americans. - May 16: American Paul Bremer, appointed head of the civil administration in Iraq banned from public office for former members of the Baath Party. - October 16: UN adopted Resolution 1511 concerning the composition of an international force. - December 13: Saddam Hussein was captured in Tikrit, his hometown north of Baghdad.
20. What happened in the Iraq war? The Americans won and the Iraqis retreated back to their homeland to plot a different way to destroy the Americans. After the war the Americans shot missiles at the base of the Iraqis to show they wouldn't want to mess with them.  The Iraq War was an American Invasion of the Iraqi Regime that was believed to have had weapons of mass destruction. Toppling the government occurred early in the War and the majority of the fighting was between guerrillas and the United States Army during the Occupation and Nation-Building Phases. Finally, in 2011 the United States affirmed that Iraq is ready to maintain its own defense and left the country.
21. How many people died in the Iraq war? Answer 1Various estimates ranging from 150,000 to over 1.2 million have been produced for direct and indirect casualties as a result of conflict in Iraq based on varying periods of time from 2003 up to 2006-2010. Documents exposed by Wikileaks put official field counts at nearer the 109,000 mark, with roughly two thirds of those being civilian. Further estimates bump that figure up to around 150,000, with 80% being civilian.  Answer 2There is dispute about the number of people who have died in Iraq. One of the main sources used by the media is Iraq Body Count, whose website is IraqBodyCount.net. They had a number of deaths from March 2003 to January 2009 of around 90,000. However they rely almost entirely on deaths reported in the media, and they themselves admit that their figures are likely to be a great underestimate. There have been a couple of serious studies. They came to the following figures: 655,000 as of June 2006 according to a Lancet study 151,000 as of June 2006 according to a New England Journal of Medicine study.
22. The Lancet and The New England Journal of medicine are two of the most respected medical journals in the world.  It is important to realise that all studies of this kind have a large margin of error. The Lancet study stated they had a 95% confidence that the figure was in the range 392,979 to 942,636. The New England Journal of Medicine has 95% confidence it is in the range 104,000 to 223,000. Thus there is dispute amongst serious epidemiologists.  Both studies consider only the first 1198 days (up until the end of June 2006), whereas as I write this it is mid January 2009, 2136 days since the start of the conflict. The Lancet study gives an average number of deaths of 546.7 per day, and the NEJM study gives an average 126 deaths per day.  If we assume that the number of deaths continues at the rate that the two studies have given, then the NEJM suggests that around 269,000 (over a quarter of a million) have died as of 1st Jan 2008, and the Lancet study suggests that around 1.1 millionhave died as of this date.Clearly there is a wide range of figures. However, there have been many politically motivated criticisms, aiming to reduce the magnitude or severity of the casualties. The fact remains that the best is to rely on serious scientific evidence, and to cite your sources. Number of deaths Number of deaths On 30th June 2006 On January 1 2008 Number of deaths Per day Lancet Study 655,000 546.74 955,710 New England Journal of Medicine Study 151,000 126.04 220,324. Answer 34,257 Americans have died. 30,182 have been wounded.
23. U.S.A. Army
24. Reasons to Keep Word—U.S.A. Withdrawal from Iraq The United States’ long and bloody nightmare in Iraq appears to be coming to a close as the clock ticks down towards December 31, 2011, the deadline for complete US withdrawal under the 2008 US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). What remains to be seen is what sort of Iraq will be left behind. Nine years after the US invasion, Iraq is far from the ‘model for democracy’ envisioned by the Bush administration when it invaded and occupied the country. Instead, stability is now the US’ primary policy goal for the country. In recent months, a number of prominent political and military officials have argued that, despite the terms of the SOFA, the United States should maintain a military presence in Iraq past the end of the year in order to preserve hard won security gains in the country. On a trip to Iraq in April of 2011, then-Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, told troops that the US could remain in Iraq for years to come.
25. Consequences of the War The military action not only aggravated the humanitarian crisis, but also engendered major economic, political, legal, military and strategic repercussions. Pre-war speculation (often exaggerated) here yields to post-war realities.  Though Saddam Hussein did not use weapons of mass destruction nor set fire to Iraq's oil fields nor attack Israel with rockets, and though the conflict was relatively short, the war has had many serious results ranging from death and destruction in Iraq to regional instability to a weakened world economy. Intense initial bombardment meant to create "shock and horror" and promptly surrender the Iraqi military force, had no effect. Shi'ites in the south have not rebelled against Saddam Hussein. Iraqis have not encountered the "liberators" with flowers and gratitude Americans. "Blitzkrieg" has the envisaged temporarily stalled. Troops and Anglo-American special forces found no missiles "illegal" or nuclear, chemical or biological. Withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, completed on 18 December 2011, is not only the end of a war apparently started 8 years ago and half a "coalition" led by the U.S., and a stark conclusion of armed conflict left more than 130,000 victims two million refugees, persistent anti-American resentment and long-term adverse consequences.
26. On 13 December 2011, at a ceremony to formalize discrete military presence in Iraq, two seats were reserved for labels Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, with the hope that they will publicly express some gratitude for American sacrifices in Iraq. Avoiding the occasion, the two leaders were not presented. Reflecting boundaries war achievements called "Iraqi Freedom." Nobody claims that Iraq has become a strategic ally of the United States. Prime Minister Al-Maliki is closer to Tehran than to Washington. However, the nationalist, not anyone puppet. So far, Maliki has signaled that it will not support U.S. policy of isolating Iran over its nuclear ambitions, will not have a friendly attitude towards the State of Israel and will not be with those trying to overthrow Bashar al-Assad Syria. Feeling forced parliament, public opinion and pressure Iran, Maliki refused to grant immunity from prosecution foreign militaries. Forcing the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq combatants in late 2011 as planned in the past in negotiations with former President Bush. Persecution and abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the Haditha massacre, Fallujah and Balad, the U.S. military and the inability of the "subject" Iraqis have diminished U.S. influence in the region. Other Arab states were not tempted to take the Iraqi model "democratization" forced. Arab revolutions of 2011 and blaspheme expulsion of dictators who benefited from the support of Washington have shown that the ability of U.S. authorities to persuade allies and intimidate opponents fell after the invasion of Iraq.
27. Coalition troops left, Iraq is fragile, suspicion-ridden and troubled by political conflicts. Traditional ethnic hostilities in Iraq could again become violent. Militias remain heavily armed. Traditional Differences between Shia and Sunni Kurds are unresolved. Laws covering distribution of energy sources have not yet been adopted. Instead of promoting inclusiveness, Maliki has taken drastic measures to concentrate power in his hands. Government 'including' in Baghdad began to unravel. On the same day the last American troops left the country, block Irakiya supported by Sunnis, said it no longer participate in parliamentary deliberations and that leaves the coalition government as it is allowed to contribute to the political process and as Prime Minister Maliki, insisting personal control security services and the ministries of Interior and defense, "is a dictator." Authorities have issued an arrest warrant for Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashim, accused of terrorism. Three Hashim's bodyguards testified that he had ordered bombings and assassinations targeting Shiite officials and security officers. Although Hashim insisted he is innocent, he immediately went to Kurdistan to consult with the Vice-KhuzaeeKhudhair Shia and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. President of Kurdistan, MassoudBarzani, said that he would not hand over HashimHashim authorities in Baghdad because it is guest of. Another Sunni deputy, Saleh al-Mutlah targeted by Maliki for dismissal, accompanied Hasim north. Hundreds of former Baathist party members were arrested in recent weeks. Maliki-controlled security forces were placed around houses Sunni leaders in the capital. The rapidity with which the leaders of the factions in Iraq have sharpened the differences between them created a frantic diplomatic activity at the White House, State Department and Pentagon. Trying to defuse the crisis, U.S. officials put pressure on Maliki to abandon authoritarian tendencies to accept power sharing and show tolerance towards opponents. It became clear that without the presence of "pacifying" the U.S. military in Iraq policy will be driven by fear, uncertainty and separatist tendencies. Although it had elections, Iraq "post-war" is far from being a functional democracy.
28. Bibliography 1. Ephraim Kam, „To Iraq and Back: The Withdrawal of the US Forces”, Strategic Assessment, 2012 2. http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2794 3. http://www.acum.tv/articol/19824/ 4. http://www.revista22.ro/consecintele-razboiului-din-irak-417.html 5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/us-withdrawal-iraq-beginning 6.http://www.telegrafonline.ro/pdf/b054551b2754b1ed45412b5d5e09e980.pdf 7.http://www.telegrafonline.ro/pdf/7341b3899a5f261a38c2afdc1cbcb243.pdf 8.http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Centers/saban/iraq%20index/index20120131.PDF 9.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_causes_of_the_Iraq_War_of_2003-2011 10.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happened_in_the_Iraq_war 11.Images: Google Bilder