The Complete Idiot's Guide to Middle East Conflict

by Mitchell G. Bard, Ph. D.

  Iraq remained part of the Arab coalition seeking to destroy Israel. In the Six-Day War of June 1967, Iraq sent a force to the Jordanian front. After the war, the Soviets replaced weapons destroyed by Israel and offered the Iraqis financial aid, which helped establish Iraq as a military power.

  * * *

  Hieroglyphics

  The Baath Party was founded in 1943 in Damascus by Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar. It advocates the creation of a single Arab socialist nation.

  * * *

  The humiliation by the Israelis, however, intensified internal opposition to the government and the military executed a coup in 1968. Under the leadership of General Hassan el-Bakr, Iraq became an even more repressive dictatorship.

  Iraq took an increasingly harsh line toward Israel and, although it again sent only a token contingent to fight in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, became one of the most outspoken Arab governments in its commitment to liberate Palestine. When Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1978, Iraq emerged as a leader of the Rejectionist Front opposing the agreement.

  Then Came Saddam

  In 1979, al-Bakr resigned, or was forced out by Saddam Hussein. Over the next several months and years, Hussein firmly established his control over the government by executing anyone who represented a real or imagined challenge and making clear through his ruthlessness that no dissent would be tolerated. He remained firmly in control of Iraq until his ouster by U.S. forces in 2003.

  His efforts to expand his influence led to two costly wars, first with Iran, and then with the U.S.–led coalition forces after the invasion of Kuwait (see Chapter 20). Meanwhile, his people have suffered. After the Gulf War (1990–1991), the United Nations imposed trade sanctions that were only to be lifted after Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons, terminated its nuclear weapons programs, and accepted international inspections to see that these conditions were met. The sanctions restricted oil sales, but this was later modified to allow Iraq to sell limited amounts of oil for food. The sanctions were further relaxed in 2002, to allow more humanitarian aid into the country.

  Tensions remained high as the U.S. Congress funded Iraqi opposition groups in the hope that they might topple Saddam. Those efforts were widely criticized as ineffective and insufficient to do the job. At the same time, U.S. and British war planes continued to patrol the skies over parts of northern and southern Iraq (declared to be no-fly zones to protect the Kurdish and Shia populations), occasionally drawing fire from Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries, which would provoke retaliatory attacks on the Iraqi positions by the Allied planes.

  Evildoers

  When George W. Bush campaigned for president in 2000, he expressed no interest in trying to change the world. On the contrary, he criticized Democrats for their efforts at nation building. Bush tilted toward isolationism, and few people would have predicted that within four years he would be widely reviled for pursuing a policy of unilateral interventionism.

  September 11 changed Bush’s perception radically. He realized that the United States was engaged in a war with terrorists who were backed by rogue nations. In his January 2002 State of the Union speech, he described Iraq, along with North Korea and Iran, as part of an “axis of evil” that threatened global security.

  * * *

  Ask the Sphinx

  Hussein warned that he would attack Israel if Iraq was threatened, and many of America’s allies in the region and in Europe expressed reservations about a military campaign to depose the Iraqi leader.

  * * *

  Inspection Games

  On October 8, 2002, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution condemning Iraq for failing to cooperate with the UN inspectors and demanding that Iraq provide an accounting of its weapons and offer unrestricted access to its facilities. The resolution also called for Iraq to allow its scientists to be interviewed outside the country where they were less subject to intimidation and might reveal information about Iraq’s weapons programs.

  Iraq allowed the inspectors greater access, but they still had difficulties seeing everything they wanted. The Iraqis destroyed some missiles, but it was believed they might be hiding others. The inspectors had little success interviewing Iraqi scientists. After nearly four months, little was accomplished. The French and their allies on the issue pressed to give the UN more time, whereas the United States believed enough time had been wasted and that Saddam would never fully comply with the resolutions.

  The U.S. and Britain wanted the UN to adopt a resolution setting a deadline for Iraq to disarm or face unspecified consequences. Because three of the countries with veto power (France, Russia, and China) opposed the idea, it had no chance of being adopted. President Bush concluded that given the impossibility of obtaining the UN approval for military action, the U.S. would have to act on its own to defend its interests.

  Grave Threats

  After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration built a case for eliminating the Iraqi threat.

  By March 2003, Bush decided the United States would lead a “coalition of the willing” to disarm Iraq and liberate its people. Bush already had the support of the U.S. Congress, which had voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of military force to defend the United States against “the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”

  Unfriendly Friends

  The U.S. position was undermined by the opposition of many of its closest friends, in particular France and Germany. Both were adamantly opposed to a military campaign and insisted on pursuing a diplomatic strategy. Great Britain did rally to America’s side. Prime Minister Tony Blair made many of the same arguments as George Bush, presenting much of the same intelligence, for example, regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

  * * *

  Sage Sayings

  We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind—black or white, Christian or not, left, right or a million different—to be free, free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a living and be rewarded by your efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear, free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That’s what we’re fighting for. And it’s a battle worth fighting.

  —British prime minister Tony Blair

  * * *

  Though ridiculed by critics of the war, the U.S. did build a coalition of nations that included countries such as Australia, Spain, and Poland. Because the British and Americans would comprise the bulk of the forces, however, and two of its most important allies were opposing the policy, Bush’s decision to go to war was seen as a more unilateral decision than the one made by his father who had carefully built a broader coalition.

  Get Out of Town by Sundown

  On March 17, 2003, Bush warned that he would attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not leave the country within 48 hours. Saddam remained defiant. Two days later, a U.S. air strike aimed at killing the Iraqi strongman and potentially averting war failed.

  On March 20, Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced.

  Unlike the Gulf War in 1991, when Colin Powell had advocated invading with overwhelming force, and used ground troops only after a sustained air campaign, General Tommy Franks took a different approach, mounting a nearly simultaneous air and ground campaign, and deploying a smaller ground force.

  The coalition forces unleashed a massive aerial bombardment on Baghdad. The “shock-and-awe campaign” was designed to do both and, ideally, decapitate Saddam’s government and discourage the army from fighting.

  The coalition forces swept through Iraq far more quickly than expected, in large measure because Iraqi troops only put up light resistance in most places. U.S. troops reached Baghdad in roughly two weeks and captured the city in four days.

  * * *

  Mysteries of the Desert

  A top U.S. priority in the war against Iraq was to capture western airfields where it was feared Iraq would launch Scud missiles at Israel, as it had in 1991. As in that war, the administration hoped to keep Isra
el out of the conflict to avoid the possibility of antagonizing the Arabs who otherwise supported ousting Saddam. Israel had intimated it would not show the same restraint if attacked this time. Whether it wanted to or not, Iraq never fired a missile in Israel’s direction.

  * * *

  Fighting continued in a number of locations around the country for another two weeks before President Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1. During the war, 115 Americans died in combat and another 23 perished in other ways. America’s principal ally, Great Britain, suffered 33 casualties. The U.S. did not keep an official count of Iraqi casualties, and the estimates varied widely from thousands to hundreds of thousands. News organizations placed the figure of military and civilian deaths between 10,000 and 20,000.

  Saddam Is Trapped

  After eluding U.S. forces throughout the war, and for nearly eight months after, Saddam Hussein was finally captured in December 2003 while hiding in a small underground chamber concealed near a farmhouse close to his hometown of Tikrit. The disheveled man who emerged looked very different from the all-powerful strongman that had ruled the country with an iron fist for almost a quarter century. The U.S. turned Saddam over to Iraqi authorities, who plan to publicly try him for crimes against humanity.

  This Is Winning?

  Following the war, the Bush administration began the long, difficult process of reconstructing the country and developing a new democratically chosen leadership. The damage from the fighting was extensive, and in the succeeding months Iraqis were frustrated by the slow pace of restoring basic services such as electricity and water. The effort was complicated by the U.S. decision to exclude most members of Saddam’s Baath Party from the bureaucracy. The idea was to end the party’s grip on power, but the problem then became finding people who knew how to perform the tasks required to meet public needs.

  Although Saddam’s reign of terror was over, people remained scared by the level of insecurity throughout the country. The U.S. had dissolved the Iraqi army to prevent it from posing a threat to rebuilding the nation, but it didn’t bring in a large enough contingent of its own troops to police the country, so violence continued as terrorists and insurgents began to wage a guerrilla campaign against both civilians and soldiers.

  Iraqis also expressed anger at the occupation of their country. Most were happy the U.S.–led coalition had won the war, but they naively expected the troops to make a quick exit. So long as U.S. soldiers remained on Iraqi soil, it was a reminder to Iraqis that they were not in control of their own lives.

  Taking Control

  On November 15, 2003, the coalition announced the intention to hand sovereignty over to an interim Iraqi government by June 30, 2004. Coalition troops, however, were to remain to help rebuild the country and provide security until the Iraqis had enough forces to do it themselves.

  The first steps toward giving the Iraqis greater authority began at the end of June 2004 when an interim Iraqi government was installed. It was to last until January 30, 2005, when a democratic election was scheduled.

  On election day, more than 8.5 million Iraqis (approximately 58 percent of registered voters) defied threats of violence and terrorist attacks to cast their ballots in the country’s first open, multiparty democratic elections in more than half a century.

  * * *

  Tut Tut!

  After searching throughout Iraq during and after the war, the United States was unable to find any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

  * * *

  The First Domino?

  Whatever one may think of the merits of the United States going to war against Iraq, the defeat of Saddam has had profound effects on the region that will reverberate for years to come.

  The most immediate impact was to eliminate Saddam as a threat to the United States and Iraq’s Middle East neighbors. The Gulf States certainly are breathing easier, as is Saudi Arabia. Iraq’s defeat also eliminated a leader of the Rejectionist Front and one of the biggest dangers to Israel. This also virtually eliminated, at least in the short run, the prospect of a coalition of Arab countries forming to militarily confront Israel.

  * * *

  Mysteries of the Desert

  One important consequence of Bush’s action, coupled with British diplomacy, was to persuade Libya to give up its weapons of mass destruction and to disclose that it was secretly pursuing a nuclear capability. This has made that country far less dangerous.

  * * *

  The presence of a large American military force in the region, and especially on the doorstep of radical states such as Syria and Iran, may also inhibit them for fear of provoking Bush to direct those forces into their countries. On the other hand, while the troops are indeed nearby should Bush choose to use them, American forces are stretched thin by the deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. In addition, Syria and Iran may believe the United States is too bogged down in Iraq, and too war weary, to open a new front.

  Democracy in the Middle East

  Whether it was truly a motive for going to war or not, the commitment to help Iraq establish a democracy has also sent shockwaves through the region. Many doubters argued it was impossible to bring the fragmented Iraqi society together to write a constitution and hold elections, but the people and their interim leaders defied the critics. The sight of Iraqi citizens voting despite threats on their lives and terrorist attacks on election day sent a powerful message throughout the region that Arabs yearn for freedom and can achieve greater control over their lives and government.

  * * *

  Mysteries of the Desert

  The U.S.–led war in Iraq has also created new opportunities for religious extremists in that country. Many of the insurgents are followers of bin Laden and other Islamic radicals. Potentially more serious is the Iranian influence exerted through the newly elected government of Iraq. The majority of Iraqis and members of the government are Shiite Muslims, many of whom have close ties to the theocrats in Tehran. As this is written, many analysts are concerned that rather than become a democracy, as the U.S. hopes, Iraq may turn into an Iranian-style Islamic republic that will ultimately align with Iran against the West.

  * * *

  Democracy may not sweep the Middle East, but change is certainly in the air. In January 2005, the Palestinian Authority held an election that was a marked change from the earlier charade held to elect Yasser Arafat.

  Saudi Arabia’s theocratic monarchy for the first time held elections, albeit for local councils that have little authority (and women weren’t allowed to vote), following those in Iraq. The equally autocratic government of Egypt, which was prepared to hold yet another election with only the current president on the ballot, abruptly decided to allow challengers. Syria is being pressured to end its occupation of Lebanon and many Lebanese are starting to call for greater freedom. These may be largely cosmetic measures primarily for public relations outside their countries, but they are steps in the right direction.

  Iran Resists Change

  Although most Middle East nations have moved in what the United States views as a positive direction, Iran is an exception. Iran continues to support terrorist groups, notably Hizbollah in Lebanon, seeks to adversely influence Iraq by backing the insurgency and trying to build a Shiite alliance against the Sunnis, and is pursuing nuclear weapons.

  Only time will tell if Iraq really turns out to be the first domino that brings about the end of tyranny throughout the region.

  Greater and Lesser Syria

  France had a longstanding interest in the area that is today Lebanon and Syria dating back to the Crusades. Great Britain acknowledged this special relationship when it agreed under the Sykes-Picot agreement that France would control the area after World War I (see Chapter 6).

  Syria and Lebanon did not exist as separate states. They, too, had been districts in the Ottoman Empire. When the French were awarded the mandate for the area, they divided it up into four areas: Greater Lebanon, the state of Damascus, th
e state of Aleppo, and the territory of Latakia. In 1925, Aleppo and Damascus became unified under the title of the state of Syria. A government was elected to carry on most functions while remaining under the umbrella of the French mandate.

  As in other places controlled by the foreign powers, the native population was divided into those who chafed at imperialist intervention and those who were willing to cooperate with their foreign masters. Growing resentment toward French rule and a desire for independence resulted in the signing of a treaty in 1936 in which France agreed to grant Syria independence within three years in exchange for a military alliance that allowed the French to protect their regional interests. France never ratified the treaty, however, and took direct control of the country again on the eve of World War II.

  Promises, Promises

  When France was defeated by Germany, the mandates came under the control of the Vichy government. In 1941, British troops, accompanied by Free French forces, invaded Syria and ultimately occupied the area along with Lebanon. Both the British and French promised to support independence for Syria and Lebanon.

  Not surprisingly, the pledges had little to do with satisfying Arab nationalist demands and everything to do with imperial interests. Britain was interested in improving its standing with the Arabs, which was viewed as suffering because of its policy toward Palestine, and also hoped to minimize French influence in the area. The French wanted to protect their privileged position in the area and hoped to delay independence. Nevertheless, in 1941, France agreed to allow Syria to declare its independence. Formal independence would come after the war five years later when the last French troops were withdrawn.