This is going to touch upon the First Gulf War/Iraq's invasion of Kuwaite and the Iran Iraq War, but will mainly concentrate on the Second Gulf War and the current occupation/reconstruction. so, first a potted history of the last 20 years of conflict in and around Iraq.
The Iran/Iraq War of the 80s was designed to put Saddam and his Baathist military regime in place to unite and rule the Arab world. It turned out to be a bloody stalemate where both sides lost vast numbers of men and machines in a huge border war. Iraq was supported in part by the west against the Islamic Revolutionary Iran, mostly in technical assistance and copies of satellite images of Iranian troop movements etc. Even with this help instead of taking Iraq to the top of the regional powers, it actually bankrupted it, cost it a huge number of trained troops and it's fledgling nuclear weapons programme was destroyed by an out of the blue Israeli airstrike.
The First Gulf War was a direct result of this failure, in order to get a easy victory and access to the oil wealth of Kuwaiti (claimed to be a province of Iraq) the Iraqi army invaded, quickly overrunning the defenders and cleaning up the popular resistance with well practiced efficiency. Finally the West saw that the threat Saddam posed with his renewed chance of starting up a WMD program and making a nuclear backed bid for international Arab eldership. It was decided it was time to act to put him down before he attempted to unite the Arab world under his Baathist brand of crude Stalinism and most likely nuke Israel. The first UN deployments were actually placed to defend Saudi Arabia from an anticipated Iraqi attack (or at least the threat of attack) and from there they moved into Iraq and dealt with the remains of the Iraqi army, it having been mostly decimated by air and cruise missile strikes. The aftermath of this attack was the surrender and withdrawal of the Iraqi Army from Kuwait and the border regions of Iraq and the establishment of no fly zones and a dismantling of their WMD program. Saddam stayed in power and brutally repressed any attempt to kick him out from within, including attacks on the rebelling Shia and Kurd populations in the South and North respectively.
The Second Gulf War, like WW2, came out of the restrictions placed on the losing side after the first war, Iraq had been testing the limits of both the WMD and no fly zone parts of the surrender deal before the ink was even dry on it, at first to deal with the rebelling factions within their own country, mostly using helicopters to fly paramilitary units around to engage these rebellious groups, and they continued to frustrate UN weapons inspectors at every turn. in the decade or so between the two wars combat air patrols regularly engaged Iraqi aircraft and anti-aircraft radar/missile sites within the no fly zone and the state Iraqi WMD program and stockpiles was hidden from the full view of the UN. This, in connection with the fear of Iraq harbouring anti-western terrorists and the continued threat of Iraq posed to regional stability and the state of it's own collapsing nation was the prime reason for the 'regime change' war. again after heavy air and sea bombardment the forces of the coalition moved in from all sides. this time as expected the Iraqi forces put up a far lesser resistance than the first Gulf War, they didn't surrender or revolt on mass as expected in some quarters and hardcore elements fought to the death. however the end was inevitable and the regime fell. the coalition, bolstered by it;'s many allied nation's armed forces set up a security force throughout the country to police the streets, rebuild the nations infrastructure and hunt down the remains of the hardcore forces and regime leaders.
today the power vacuum that Saddam the Baath party have left is filled by the coalition, the Interim government and it's security forces and a number of religious/regional based militias. also in this mix are a few die hard Baathists and foreign fighters supported by, yes, al Queda.
now, onto the current conflict
1. Motive for the War(s)
Iraq (Regime/Resistance) = Motives are split broadly along group/religion affiliation lines.
The Baathist and homegrown insurgent forces are mostly former regime armed and political forces looking forward to a life back in power at the top of the pile having been rudely pushed off it last year. their motives are also mixed in with the general feeling by the resistance groups that the west, America especially shouldn't be influencing Middle Eastern politics so much, much less have troops in it, this leads to tenuous unities with other groups at times. Baathists also tend to be from the Sunni Muslim minority.
Religious groups, primarily the Shia Muslims, are finding the post Saddam Iraq a fertile ground for freedom of religion and expression of their religious identity, good though this might at first seem it has led to some radical clerics assuming command of 'armies' of followers. their main aims are gaining a foothold in post Baathist political power and turning the former secular state into an Islamic one. These groups are supported by fellow Sunnis Iran, at least in vocal support, often with Iranians joining the armed forces of the Iraqi clerics.
Regional/ethnic groups such as the Kurds suffered under Saddam and are persecuted in most of the nations they live in, a homelandless people they claim a region commonly called Kurdistan as their nation, unfortunately this included land in Northern Iraq and Turkey, a pair of nations not known for liking internal dissent, as such they have long had their own army and political parties, though these often war with each other they do defend the idea of a Kurdish homeland, and are making their presence felt in Northern Iraq as target for resistance forces seeking to pull them into the terrorist cycle of violence in an attempt to delegitimise them from future political power in Iraq. Generally the Kurds are pro-coalition, having fought with the American Special forces in the North, but they are a factional group and could be a problem if they feel left out of future affairs.
Terrorist groups operating in Iraq are hard to identify, they often arrive with arms and expertise in insurgency and guerrilla warfare learned in the last few decided of Islamic warfare across the world. As they rarely carry out direct action attacks themselves their actions are often attributed to one of the other factions fighting in Iraq, they seek to influence and take power from those groups by training and radicalising them into becoming, essentially, small armies run and trained by, not filled with, foreign terrorists. These terrorists are often directly affiliated with the al-Queda network of Islamic terror groups and have an agenda wholly outside of the small scale nationalist aspirations of the real Iraqi resistance factions. Their aim is no less than the total destruction of the West and the establishment of radical Islamic power across the region (then the world etc) for them Iraq is an opportunity to attack Americans directly and create a ground for training Arabs in the art of Islamic revolution, while pushing the short term goals of the local country they are actually making it a stepping stone for further operations, as such they will work with anyone they can to further this goal. As the Baathist resistance burns out they aim to keep the (limited) momentum going by shaping the conflict in their own image
America (and it's allies) = World Peace
That is to say cheap oil, open markets, free and democratic allied nations and an end to terrorism. Iraq was a threat to all of these, as the West mostly saw it, and had been in breach of post Gulf War 1 UN mandates for years, it hadn't fallen apart on itself after it's defeat as was hoped and Saddam clung to power in an ever more reactionary and damaging way, the final straw came from the continued lack of cooperation on WMD inspector trips and the growing threat of international Arab terrorism that it was thought Saddam would latch on to, Libya style. it was decided that the Baathist regime would be removed and a moderate, representory governing council would replace it, this could be done the easy way or the hard way, Saddam predictably took the hard way out. The result of that was the nation falling apart like a pack of cards, the iron grip of the Baathis regime removed caused a number of factions to attempt to assume local power, most concentrating on anti-coalition activities. The coalition forces now are attempting to reconstruct the national infrastructure and security forces before pulling out and allowing Iraq to return to the international community, no doubt carefully monitored by the coalition for a time afterwards.
2. Weaponry (and troop quality/types, what's a gun without someone to shoot it?)
Iraq (Regime/Resistance)
Baathist loyalist = Mostly former secret police, army and irregular paramilitary forces, most of their heavy equipment was captured or destroyed in the formal war reducing them to the level of smallarms and light mortars, good for local control, hit and run and harassing attacks, useless for an extended fight or escalating a war. They enjoy some popular support from Sunni/Baathist communities but are being replaced by more radical, non-Baathist forces. Overall, lightly equipped and poor to good training, leadership and motivation.
Religious/regional factions = Interested only in local security and future political power, these groups consist of former regime loyalists and army regulars, as well as a big civilian irregular militia force including veterans of a number of national and international wars through to children throwing stones. These groups are often bolstered by foreign fighters who share their goals (i.e. Turkish Kurds, Iranian Shias etc) Weapons include the standard smallarms and light support weapons, their strong local support networks assist in supply and shelter for the militias in their own areas. Overall they are lightly equipped, range from having zero to fair training and are fair to well motivated and lead.
foreign fighters/al Queda = Specialists in international terrorist and revolutionary warfare tactics, these groups and individuals seek to build local networks of agents to carry out attack on coalition and allied groups, weapons are less of an issue as they take control of whatever the local groups have and then source out more arms and equipment from international sources including small numbers of high tech and specialised improvised weapons not available to the local domestic armed groups. Overall, they are average to highly trained and well to fanatically motivated and led
America (and its allies)
America = Having fought in Iraq a decade ago the armed forces of America were well prepared to fight the Second Gulf War and they battled though to victory with relatively few losses, it was securing the peace that started to cause trouble for the essentially congenital armed forces in theatre at the time. The heavy equipment and weapons of the conventional war are still in country, but are of reduced use in the current stages of the war, most used are light vehicles and armour and air assets in rapid reaction groups to hunt down and react to insurgent forces and local security situations. however a full array of weapons and servicemen and women are there, up to and including air defence weapons against an enemy with no air assets. a great number of personnel are essentially non-combatants and reservists dealing with issues of administrating and rebuilding the structure of the nation. Overall they are very heavily equipped, average to elite trained, average to elite led and good to well motivated.
Other coalition partners = Leading nations in the coalition such as The United Kingdom and Australia provided combat troops and support for the actual war, and while other nations sent small, specialist forces to assist also the main deployment came to secure the peace and rebuild the country. From eastern European conscripts to professional career soldiers and special forces of western nations, the non-American forces in the coalition are a mixed bunch, but are generally well armed equipped for their internal security role including light and heavy armour and limited air assets (not to mention being able to call in support from American assets) and include many combat and counter insurgency/anti terrorist operation specialists. Overall they are medium to heavily equipped, average to elite trained and led and average to well motivated.
New Iraqi forces = The rebuilding of the Iraqi army and police forces has fallen to the coalition forces in the wake of the near total disintegration of the old security forces during and after the war. Many former soldiers and police have signed back up in order to secure a future for themselves and their country but have been badly hit by local and national campaigns against coalition forces and those assisting them leading to many desertions to local/religious groups who have more influence over them. designed for internal security only with few heavy assets (for the time being) they are very reliant on the coalition for guidance and support. Overall lightly equipped, poor to average trained, motivated and led
International security groups = Security groups from all of the coalition nations are bidding for contracts to guard assets and personnel in Iraq, mostly groups will be hired by civilian contractors from the same nation as them to conduct security on the projects they are working on specifically and as body guards in general. These range from civilian and former military personnel providing risk assessment and awareness training to fully armed paramilitary outfits filled with a mix of former special forces equipped with light armoured vehicles and smallarms, protecting convoys, sites and personnel that the coalition armed forces are too thinly spread to do so themselves. Also involved is the shadowy hand of the coalition intelligence services operation deniable operations and Geneva convention avoiding tasks under the cover of civilian security groups, but this is in the vast minority. Overall very lightly to lightly equipped, average to elite trained and led and well motivated ($)
3. Opinions concerning the war
Iraq (Regime/Resistance)
As mentioned, their objectives are differed and often directly conflicting, from the reinstatement of Saddam and the Baathist regime to the destruction of America and it's evil allies. These groups have limited popular support, often restricted to regional and religious groups with many Iraqis disowning them all together as troublemakers and bandits, as such they have often have as much trouble from the local population as support from it, and spend a lot of time in power struggles against other factions rather than the coalition directly. As a single group the resistance does not exist, their only common enemy is the occupying forces, and at times even that is not the case with groups working with the coalition when it suits them and attacking them when it doesn't.
Internationally the support for the anti-coalition forces comes from a wide spectrum, from left-wing peace/anti-imperialist/globalisation groups who see it as a legitimate force against American political hegemony, to the radical Islamic terror groups who send money and men to join in the fight for Islam/against America. both of these tend groups use the specific example of Iraq to illustrate a wider point, the specifics of the situation are less important than their overall agenda and the future of their policies and both claim to loath the current situation in Iraq but both also make all the political capital they can out of it and would sorely miss it when it ends.
America (and allies)
With the war won and Saddam now in custody, all that is left is to rebuild Iraq into a modern progressive nation. To these ends the nations of the coalition are spending a lot of money and not a few lives to do this as fast as possible before the political will to see it through lessens too much. Many of the 'new' nations of Eastern Europe and other former Soviet states are eager to join in this effort to gain a place for themselves on the international stage and gain firmer alliances with the West, specifically America, to many of these nations democracy is still slow to take a hold and opposition to the war and current operations is limited, the gains they can make far outweigh the losses, unlike those of America, at lest in the short term.
Long term the fate of Iraq is designed to be a case in point to the world demonstrating that to oppose the UN, and specifically America is a fast way to destruction, unregulated nuclear power, WMD development, dealing with terrorists and threatening both the internal religious/ethnic groups and neighbouring countries will not be tolerated by the coalition partners. The ethnic cleansing that happened in the Balkans will not be allowed to start up again, nor will the ending of aid missions such as in Somalia, already Libya has joined in talks and decommissioning in exchange for being allowed back into the international community rather than risk the same fate, Pakistan has re-joined the commonwealth and the rest of the usual suspects are starting to reduce their aggressive moves and are building bridges within the international community, all either by coincidence or through fear of being next on the list of an active America and it's allies
again, just a quick (ha) overview of the situation, very generalised, very open to exact discussion and clarification.
now all I need to do is actually do what's needed, and compare the two conflicts, but I thought a base of knowledge was needed before I did that, just to get you all up to speed with what's going on first
really, if you want to do it yourself just look at my guerrilla warfare essay above and then use the numbered points here to flesh it out specifically for Iraq and Vietnam
_________________ ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it
|