Timeline for Iraq War March 2003:War begins April 2003:Fall of Baghdad May 2003:Bush announces “Mission Accomplished” June 2003:Deterioration and beginning of insurgency :Insurgency and chaos Jan 2007:Surge of 30,000 additional troops with new strategy Nov 2008:Bush signs agreement for all US troops to leave by 2011 Jan 2012:Last US troops leave under Obama 2013-Rise of ISIS and American air strikes

Iraq War: Systemic View Hegemonic US in aftermath of 9/11 attacks Iraq a reduced regional power (at best) Did Iraq represent any kind of threat to US? Middle East with on-going instability in international system

Iraq War: Domestic View Much of American political system “falls in” with idea of war with Iraq American people support Iraq War initially Many key members of Bush administration were involved in Gulf War; many were associated with Project for a New American Century and the neoconservative mindset

Iraq War: Individual View President Bush decided to go to war with Iraq (as early as 2002?) Bush and Bush advisors wanted to overthrow Saddam and bring democracy to Iraq and (perhaps) other parts of Middle East Saddam miscalculates: thought that WMD ambiguity gave his regime some protection

Iraq War Let’s return to this question in a bit

Early Bush Foreign Policy Condoleezza Rice: “Promoting the National Interest” in Foreign Affairs (early 2000) Seen as blueprint for future Bush foreign policy Critical of Clinton era’s humanitarian interventions Classical realist viewpoint

Early Bush Foreign Policy “The reality is that a few big powers can radically affect international peace, stability, and prosperity. These states are capable of disruption on a grand scale, and their fits of anger or acts of beneficence affect hundreds of millions of people. By reason of size, geographic position, economic potential, and military strength, they are capable of influencing American welfare for good or ill. Moreover, that kind of power is usually accompanied by a sense of entitlement to play a decisive role in international politics. Great powers do not just mind their own business.” Promoting the National Interest

Early Bush Foreign Policy Maintain America’s military capability, including ballistic missile defense Promote growth and democracy through international free trade system Renew relationships with allied nations Focus on great power relations, especially Russia and China Deal with rogue regimes and hostile powers, including terrorism and WMDs

Early Bush Foreign Policy Paul O’Neill, Treasury Secretary from , states that there were discussions about ousting Saddam Hussein from the beginning of the Bush administration

Early Bush Foreign Policy Bush foreign policy was somewhat unclear in first nine months in office Lack of clarity not unexpected Vague realism What would Bush foreign policy be absent attacks of September 11, 2001?

The Events of September 11, 2001

Impact of 9/11 Attacks Vulnerability – first attack on American continent since 1812 Attack on innocent civilians Deadliest terrorist attack ever (almost 3000 deaths) Saw images repeatedly

Bush Doctrine Realism Hegemonism

Hegemonism Defintion US as single superpower; it should act to preserve US dominance into the future; it should use its military, economic and cultural power to further US interests wherever it sees fit

Hegemonism Defintion US should use its overwhelming power to promote democracy in the world, especially in places like Iraq and the Middle East “Neoconservatism”

Deep Impact on President Bush approval goes from 51% to 90% Bush saw himself as a war-time President His destiny to lead the GWOT Fundamental shift from unclear foreign policy to hegemonism, preemption, and GWOT

“Use of Force Resolution” (House-Senate Joint Resolution 9/14/01 That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Bush Address to Congress (September 20, 2001) “Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”

War in Afghanistan

Begins October 2001 Taliban overthrown and al-Qaeda camps destroyed President Hamid Karzai in2002 (new President in 2014) Taliban regroups and returns by 2003; Afghanistan still under renewed Taliban insurgency in 2015 Reasonably successful (?) in destroying much of al- Qaeda’s terrorist capability in Afghanistan Bin Laden is alive until 2011 US “ignores” Afghanistan due to Iraq war Renewed effort under President Obama Final outcome in Afghanistan is unclear/pessimistic

Bush State of the Union (January 2002) Discusses North Korea, Iran, Iraq “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.”

Bush Doctrine Preemptive/preventative war Unilateralism Maintain US hegemony Terrorism and rogue states Fight terrorism wherever it appears Focus on Afghanistan and Iraq

Bush Doctrine Much of the Bush Doctrine was NOT a radical change in policy Bush administration did give much greater emphasis to preemption, unilateralism and hegemony Got “caught up” with idea of transforming Iraq (and Middle East)

War with Iraq: Why

War with Iraq: Why? Saddam had WMD “capability,” including possibly nuclear weapons Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda (and somehow contributed to 9/11) Overthrow evil dictator, bring democracy to Iraq (and Middle East) Main justifications from Bush administration

War with Iraq: Why? War of choice (not a war of necessity)

Preemptive War for WMD “The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.” March 19, 2003 George Bush

Preemptive War for WMD “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” August 26, 2002 Dick Cheney

Preemptive War for WMD “We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.” February 5, 2003 Colin Powell

Preemptive War for WMD “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction.” Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense

Preemptive War for WMD Best case: the Bush administration “cherry-picked” the intelligence to confirm their suspicions that Saddam had WMD Worst Case:the Bush administration knew that Saddam did not have WMD but lied to the American people in order to make the case for war

No Weapons of Mass Destruction Found “The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003.” Iraq Survey Group Report, October 2004

“Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq.” George Bush, July 12, 2004 “Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.” George Bush, October 8, 2004

Saddam and 9/11 No ties between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 attacks

Why? “Why did the United States invade Iraq? It still isn’t possible to be sure – and this remains the most remarkable thing about the Iraq War. It was just something that people wanted to do. Before the invasion, Americans argued not just about whether a war should happen, but for what reasons it should happen – what the real motives of the Bush administration were and should be. Since the invasion, we have continued to argue, and we will go on arguing for years to come.” George Packer, The Assassin’s Gate

Why? Richard Haass, Director of Policy Planning in the State Department, met with Condoleezza Rice in June 2002 to argue against war. “Save your breath,” Rice interrupted. “The president has already made up his mind.” George Packer, The Assassin’s Gate

Why? “How did George Bush reach this point? I will go to my grave not fully understanding why, although I believe I have a good if not complete understanding of how this second Iraq war came about. There is no certainty, as there was no meeting or set of meetings at which the pros and cons were debated and a formal decision taken. No this decision happened. It was cumulative. The issue was on the table from the outset of the administration, but it was not going anywhere in particular. …Before 9/11, Iraq was simply one of many concerns on an evolving foreign policy agenda. After 9/11, the president and those closest to him wanted to send a message to the world that the United States was willing to act decisively. Liberating Afghanistan was a start but in the end it did not scratch the itch.”

Why? “Iraq was fundamentally different. The president wanted to destroy an established nemesis of the United States. And he wanted to change the course of history, transforming not just a country but the region of the world that had produced the lion’s share of the world’s terrorism and had resisted much of modernity. He may have sought to accomplish what his father did not. The arguments put forward to going for war – noncompliance with U.N. resolutions, possession of weapons of mass destruction – turned out to be essentially window dressing, trotted out to build domestic and international support for a policy that had been forged mostly for other reasons.” Richard Haass, War of Necessity, War of Choice (member of Bush State Department)

Why? “How, though, to maintain the momentum, given that the Taliban was no more and that Al Qaeda wasn't likely to present itself as a conspicuous target? This was where Saddam Hussein came in: Iraq was the most feasible place in which to strike the next blow. If we could topple that tyrant … then we could accomplish a great deal. We could complete the task the Gulf War left unfinished. We could destroy whatever weapons of mass destruction Saddam might have accumulated since. We could end whatever support he was providing for terrorists beyond Iraq's borders, notably those who acted against Israel. We could liberate the Iraqi people. We could ensure an ample supply of inexpensive oil. We could set in motion a process that could undermine and ultimately remove reactionary regimes elsewhere in the Middle East, thereby eliminating the principal breeding ground for terrorism. The attraction of this particular stone was the number of birds it could simultaneously kill.” John Lewis Gaddis, Surprise, Security and the American Experience

Why? President Bush focuses on danger of WMD and possibilities for democracy in Iraq and the Middle East No fundamental explanation of decision to invade Iraq

Why? “The stakes were too high to trust the dictator’s word against the weight of evidence and the consensus of the world. The lesson of 9/11 was that if we waited for a danger to fully materialize, we would have waited too long. I reached a decision. We would confront the threat from Iraq, one way or another.” George Bush, Decision Points

Why? “Because the United States liberated Iraq and then refused to abandon it, the people of that country have a chance to be free. …A free and peaceful Iraq is in our vital strategic interest. It can be a valuable ally at the heart of the Middle East, a source of stability in the region, and a beacon of hope to political reformers in its neighborhood and around the world.” “From the beginning of the war in Iraq, my conviction was that freedom is universal – and democracy in the Middle east would make the region more peaceful.” George Bush, Decision Points

Mission Accomplished? Saddam’s regime collapses three weeks after invasion begins May 1, 2003 President Bush announces “end of major combat operations” Iraqi insurgency begins summer of 2003

Mission Accomplished? Outlines lack of planning and numerous mistakes during early occupation of Iraq which led to significant insurgency, American casualties, and near civil war from mid

Iraq: 2006/2007 Democrats win back House and Senate in Nov.2006 and SecDef Rumsfeld replaced Bush approval on Iraq at 30% President Bush announces “surge” of 30,000 additional troops Gen. Petraeus takes charge in Iraq; implements new COIN strategy 60% of Americans oppose more troops

Iraq: 2007 US troops peak at 170,000 in October 899 US troop deaths in 2007 (highest ever) Number of factors, including surge, contributes to reduction of violence in Iraq in second half of year

Reasons for Better Situation Ethic cleansing reduces Sunni/Shiite violence Iran works to reduce violence of Sadr’s Mahdi army US “buys off” part of insurgency Reconstruction of Iraqi military Impact of additional US troops and new COIN strategy Considerable disagreement whether or not surge “worked” Some disagreement on purpose of surge No doubt that “The Surge” made a very bad situation somewhat better

Iraq: 2008 Candidate Obama promises (in vague terms) to end the occupation of Iraq March: Number of enemy-initiated attacks down by two- thirds Last of surge troops leave in July

Iraq: 2008 November: Bush admin. signs agreement (SOFA) with Maliki government for US troops to leave cities by summer 2009 and all of Iraq by end of 2011 Bush leaves office with 140,000 troops in Iraq Some measure of stability achieved Belief that some US troops may remain beyond deadline

Iraq: 2009 President Obama takes office with 140,000 troops in Iraq; announces withdrawal of troops in March 2009 President Obama announces plan to fulfill SOFA agreement Most US troops leave Iraqi cities by July 2009

Iraq: 2010 January: 100,000 US troops March: Second parliamentary elections held August 31 signals end of “combat operations” of US troops, focus on training Iraqi troops 50,000 troops remain by September 2010

Iraq: 2011 Consistent with Bush agreement, Obama announces all US troops will leave Iraq by the end of 2011

War with Iraq: Outcome Last American troops gone by 1/1/12 Violence down from A series of “democratic elections” through 2015 Prime Minister Malaki begins to crackdown on Sunni Iraqis soon after US troops leave This helps lead to the rise of …

War with Iraq: Outcome ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) OR ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) Since 2013 (or earlier)

War with Iraq: Outcome No WMDs found and Bush administration admits no ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda Insurgency, chaos and civil war from Some “stability” from Rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria from deaths (4300 since 5/1/03) Nearly $2 trillion since 2003

Future Scenarios for Iraq 1)Saddam 2.0 2)Civil war (ISIS) 3)Incomplete democracy, paralysis, Iranian influence 4)Real democracy 5)Sunni Iraq, Shia Iraq, independent Kurdistan

Future of Iraq ?????