World News Headlines

Coverage of breaking stories

Why did UN coalition troops battle Iraqi forces in 1991?

source :

Why did UN coalition troops battle Iraqi forces in 1991?

Saddam Hussein misinterpreted the political climate at the time and thought there would be no effective international reaction if he invaded Kuwait. He particularly thought the US would accept his actions.

The overwhelming military force brought to bear on the Iraqi forces made the liberation fight relatively quick. Many thought the Coalition should have brought down Saddam’s Baathist regime in Iraq as well but there was no general agreement in the Coalition to do so.

George W. Bush (the younger) revived this objective after 2001.

Battle of Khafji - Wikipedia

Battle of Khafji – Wikipedia – The Battle of Khafji was the first major ground engagement of the Gulf War. It took place in and around the Saudi Arabian city of Khafji, from 29 January to 1 February 1991 and marked the culmination of the Coalition's air campaign over Kuwait and Iraq, which had begun on 17 January 1991.When the Coalition ground offensive began on 24 February 1991, approximately 41-43 Iraqi divisions were in the According to some estimates the number of Iraqi troops in the theater at the start of the ground It should be noted that some Iraqi divisions remained un-identified by American intelligence…The overwhelming military force brought to bear on the Iraqi forces made the liberation fight relatively quick. Many thought the Coalition should have brought down Saddam's Baathist regime in Iraq as well but there was no general agreement in the Coalition to do so. George W. Bush (the younger)…

Iraq Ground Forces Order of Battle – 1991 – Iraqi pro-government forces have made gains at the start of a large-scale operation to retake Mosul, the last major stronghold of the so-called Islamic State (IS) in the country. Iraqi government troops and Kurdish fighters launched their push towards the city in the early hours of Monday.The United Nations gave Iraq until January 15, 1991, to leave Kuwait. When Iraq refused to leave Kuwait by that day, Operation Desert Storm began the next day. Iraqi casualties far outnumbered the casualties of the U.S. led coalition. Estimates indicate there were over 100,000 Iraqi casualties.The United Nations immediately withdraws all nonessential employees. U.S. combat troops withdraw from Baghdad and other Iraqi cities in accordance with a Status of Forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States.

Iraq Ground Forces Order of Battle - 1991

Why did UN coalition troops battle Iraqi forces in 1991? | Socratic – Iraqi officials did not immediately say whether there were any casualties, though a coalition spokeswoman later said no coalition troops had The Saudi-led coalition fighting Houthi forces in Yemen carried out a series of air raids on barracks used by the Iran-aligned group in and around the…In 2003, for the invasion of Iraq itself, coalition forces numbered fewer than 200,000. The invasion of Kuwait in 1991 was preceded by a 40-day air Many in the Pentagon were convinced the entry of American troops into Iraq would trigger an uprising, or perhaps a coup, and that American forces…"US forces are in Iraq at the invitation of Iraqi Government to support the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) in their fight against ISIS," said a joint statement following the "Based on the increasing capacity of the ISF, the parties confirmed that the mission of U.S. and Coalition forces has now transitioned to one…

JIll Starr Why She Felt So Safe On A Tivat Ferry: Jill
Alex Conway
JIll Starr Why She Felt So Safe On A Tivat Ferry: Jill
Conceptual Marketing Corporation -
Science And What-not...: Kuwaiti Oil Fires

These Historical Conflicts Were Actually Proxy Wars… – For those who aren’t aware of the term,
a proxy war is when two nations don’t really want to directly fight each other or declare
war due to the financial cost and diplomatic hassle, so they duke it out in some other
country, usually allowing the side they support with advisors and weapons to do the majority
of the actual fighting.
The proxy war allows for a chance to gain
territory and hegemony around the world, while looking like a supporter of “sides” and
not just a conqueror — it also conveniently tends to keep war directly away from the door
of the nations using the proxies. In today’s article, we will go over 10 of
the most important proxy wars of all time. 10. The American Revolution Was Very Much About
Great Britain and France Many people think that the proxy war as we
know it didn’t really start until around the mid-1800s, and that even then we hardly
saw much of this phenomenon until after World War I and even more so after World War II. However, many historians believe that the
American Revolution is one of the earliest examples of the type of proxy war we have
now started to see so much of. Now, while many Americans do like to think
of it as a great victory against the British, the truth is that the British always had their
hands in a lot of military pies, so if they truly had been bringing their full weight
to bear from the beginning, things might have been different. However, even more importantly, the French
saw the American Revolution as a chance to destabilize Britain, and help get new trade
connections, power, and influence in North America. The French provided military advisers, guns,
ammunition, boots, naval support and so much other help that it cannot be underestimated. While the colonists certainly fought very
hard for their freedom, without the French helping out in this early proxy war, it may
have been a very different story entirely. 9. The Korean War Was A Proxy Conflict With The
Soviets And Chinese Against The USA The Korean War was really the first major
proxy conflict of the Cold War, and not only set the grim stage for the rest of the Cold
War but left huge lingering issues that have not even been close to solved to this day. While many documentaries and shows or movies
dramatize World War II and other more “popular” wars, people today don’t seem to be particularly
interested in Korean War history (outside of those who still watch reruns of M*A*S*H). This is probably because the conflict didn’t
leave anyone with a particularly happy outcome or make anyone look particularly good. The USA was already fresh off World War II,
and most people didn’t really have much stomach or interest in more war; however,
they were caught up in one anyway. After World War II, Korea was split between
the United States and the Soviets, with the USA supporting the Southern side and the Soviets
supporting the Northern Side. On June 25, 1950, the Northern forces of Korea
attacked the Southern side of Korea and initiated war. Two days later, President Truman officially
declared US involvement against the Northern side and the Chinese soon got involved with
their own troops on the ground. The war caused about 600,000 deaths, with
about 36,000 of those being American lives, and is still in the status of a temporary
ceasefire; it has never officially ended. 8. The Vietnam War Was Also A Proxy War Between
China And The USA The Vietnam War is one of the most well known
wars in the world, and hardly needs much introduction. This is because it was one of the longest
lasting conflicts in recent history. American involvement first started when military
advisors were sent starting as early as 1950 (although financial support may have started
as early as 1946), back when Vietnam was still part of French Indochina, and Laos, Cambodia
and Vietnam were fighting for their independence. After the first war of Indochina ended with
the Geneva Accords of 1954, the French left Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, which were now
independent nations. This created an unstable situation where the
United States saw a chance to make another major allied proxy nation by supporting South
Vietnam, and the Chinese, as well as the Soviet Union, saw the same opportunity by supporting
the North. After 1954, the United States stepped in to
take the place of the French and support the South Vietnamese and didn’t officially leave
the war until the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973, which ended the conflict with
the communist North Vietnamese winning the war. In the end, this proxy war was a win for communist
nations like the Soviet Union, but more than anything else for China. The Chinese not only provided financial and
equipment aid like the Soviets, but after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Chinese started
stepping up their involvement and People’s Liberation Army troops poured across the border
to counter the United States Army. 7. The Iran Crisis Of 1946 Was An Early Proxy
War Between The Soviets And The USA Today, a lot of people see Iran as an enemy
of the United States, but this wasn’t always so. Back in the days of World War II, a lot of
countries were being invaded and temporarily occupied either by the allied or axis powers
and Iran was no exception. When World War II ended, the British and American
forces occupied the south and the center of the country, and the Soviet Union occupied
the North. Both sides had agreed to leave within six
months of hostilities ending, and the American and British forces kept their word on the
agreement. Unfortunately, when the deadline came in early
1946, the Soviet Union forces were not only still there, but had been training a separatist
force of Kurdish people, as well as a group called the People’s Azerbajaini forces. While the United States provided financial
support where needed, they didn’t actually have boots on the ground fighting, and the
Soviet Union relied on their proxy warriors to do most of the fighting, as they were already
relatively depleted after all of their sacrifices in World War II. The United States’s biggest involvement
was actually diplomatic as they lobbied the United Nations and used their influence to
put extreme pressure on the Soviet Union to honor their agreement and leave Iran. It is ironic that the United States is acting
so aggressive against Iran now, when back in the day they went to great diplomatic effort
to make sure they would be allowed to control their own destiny. 6. The Arab-Israeli Conflict Involves Multiple
Parties (And It Is Still Ongoing) The Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on
for a very long time — and maybe even longer, depending on who you ask. Some consider it to have started after World
War II, but a lot of the tension goes back even further. For some time the British Empire controlled
a lot of the world, and in the early 1900s after World War II, they still had control
over a lot of territory, including some in the Middle East. In 1917 they supported the creation of a Jewish
state in the area then known as Palestine, but there was great resistance including riots
and attempts at fighting off British control by the Arabs living in the area. The British eventually backtracked a bit and
agreed to slow down the amount of Jewish refugees to Palestine. However, after World War II, the desire to
find a permanent resettlement spot for Jewish refugees became more of a concern. The United Nations approved a plan to partition
the country between the Arabs and the Jewish people, but the Palestinians, the Egyptians,
Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians, and Lebanese were none too pleased. War soon started between them, and the early
Israeli powers, who were supported financially and politically by the Western powers. While Israel has certainly come out in a much
stronger position, the conflict is far from over. Multiple treaties and accords have been attempted
over the years, but fighting keeps breaking out again and again, and the Palestinian Arabs
seem to be losing more and more territory over the years, despite past agreements. While this long conflict has allowed a lot
of world powers to proxy war with each other, more recently it seems to have been a battleground
between the United States and Iran. 5. The Korean DMZ Conflict Was Really The USA
Against Both China And The Soviets Most people are well aware of the Korean War
even if they don’t know a lot of the details, but many people haven’t heard of the Korean
DMZ Conflict of the 1960s, which is sometimes referred to as the Second Korean War. The United States had escalated tensions in
the late 1950s by bringing nuclear weapons into South Korea that could strike North Korea
and China. The Chinese and the Soviets were not interested
in helping the North Koreans develop nuclear weapons, but they were still very nervous
about the potential US aggression of placing nuclear weapons in such a convenient staging
position. For this reason, they were happy to help by
proxy when Kim Il Sung decided to use the chaos of the Vietnam War to attack the South. In 1966, Kim Il Sung started mobilizing and
moved about 386,000 troops to the border with South Korea, although the South Koreans were
well fortified and with the combined US forces still in the South, were at about 585,000
troops themselves. The North Koreans under Kim Il Sung were hoping
that with the current political environment, as well as the United States being spread
thin with Vietnam (and them sending some forces from South Korea to Vietnam), they might be
able to somehow ignite an insurgency within South Korea, and then take advantage of the
chaos. Unfortunately for Kim Il Sung, his plan didn’t
work. After three years, the uneasy armistice basically
went back into effect. A few hundred people had been killed on both
sides, but the borders had not been changed. As of now, the United States, along with the
South Koreans, are still in an uneasy ceasefire against the North Koreans and their Chinese
allies. 4. The Soviet Afghan War Was The Soviet Union
Against… A Who’s Who Of World Powers Many people are exhausted and depressed by
the still ongoing war in Afghanistan, but it was not the only long quagmire of a war
in recent history in the country. Back in 1978, a pro-communist government took
power in Afghanistan and started initiating reforms that were deeply unpopular, especially
with a lot of the more rural or traditional citizens. In 1979, fearing instability in the communist
government of Afghanistan, the Soviet Union under Leonard Brezhnev invaded and staged
a coup, replacing the current leader with someone entirely loyal to their leadership. The United Nations, at the urging of 34 nations
of the Islamic Conference, passed a resolution urging the Soviets to leave Afghanistan, but
they had no interest in doing so. So the United States and Saudi Arabia started
providing huge support in the way of finances and supplies, while China and Pakistan allowed
for Mujahideen fighters to train in their countries near the border of Afghanistan,
and provided advisors and other support where they could. With several world powers against them, and
a country where resistance was pretty much everywhere, they simply couldn’t sustain
the occupation permanently or manage a true takeover. In 1989, under Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet
Union withdrew the last of their major forces from the region, but this wasn’t quite the
end of the war. The pro-Soviet government was given proxy
support in the way of money and supplies, despite no more Soviet boots on the ground,
and didn’t collapse until 1992, after the Soviet Union (which had fallen for good on
Christmas 1991) could no longer send them aid. However, the damage done by this proxy conflict
left the region in an unstable state still. The ongoing Civil War after the Soviet troops
left didn’t end after 1992, because a new Civil War started between the various Mujahideen
groups who couldn’t agree on how the country would be run, or by who. The Civil Wars would finally end in 1996 with
the Taliban taking control of most of the country. 3. The Ukrainian Crisis Is An Ongoing Proxy Conflict
With The USA And NATO Against Russia The Ukranian Crisis started back in 2013,
when the then-Prime Minister of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, decided to go against a plan to
join the European Union, and soon protests started. However, while the protests did lead to the
resignation of Yanukovych with accusations that he was a Russian agent, the Russians
fired back that the Western powers had been trying to force Ukraine to join behind the
scenes, and that they didn’t want the West to have that much influence over Ukraine,
so they did what they needed to do. Soon, pro-Russian protests started in Kiev,
helped along by Putin’s early cyber warfare, and then — as many know — the Russians
annexed the territory of Crimea from Ukraine, and put together a mock vote to make it all
look legal. The United States and the rest of the world
powers were not fooled by Putin’s blatant power grab, or his sham election, and levied
incredibly hefty economic sanctions on him. In further escalation, Putin encouraged a
revolution in the Donbass region of the Ukraine, and many Ukrainian citizens with Russian roots
started staging their own revolution and trying to take over Eastern Ukraine for Mother Russia,
often aided by Russian troops, advisors, money, and military supplies (and intelligence). In the meantime, the United States and the
West have not put boots on the ground, but they have continued their economic sanctions
against Russia, and continue to support Ukraine with their pocketbooks whenever possible. 2. The Ongoing Conflict In Yemen Is Saudi Arabia
And The USA Against (Allegedly) Iran After the Arab Spring in 2011, the country
of Yemen saw power handed over from Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had been Prime Minister, to his
deputy Prime Minister Addrabbuh Mansour Hadi, in an attempt to bring some peace and stability
to the nation. From the beginning, the transition didn’t
seem to work so well; partly because the country was rather poor and suffering from a myriad
of issues already. But on top of that, many of the armed forces
of the country were still loyal to the previous leader and of course there were parties looking
for a chance to seize power in any kind of chaos. The Houthi Movement, which is a group of Shia
Muslims from the area, took control of the Northern Saada Province, and soon made some
unlikely Sunni allies as well, simply because the country was unstable and people were looking
for leadership. In 2015, the rebellion managed to take over
Yemen’s capital city of Saana and drove Prime Minister Hadi into exile. Since then, several Arab States, led by Saudi
Arabia (with help from the United States), have been working against the rebels because
they believe Yemen under a Shia government would be far too friendly with Iran. Saudi Arabia initially expected the war to
only last a few weeks, but it has continued to drag on, with the rebels still holding
onto Saana and much of the North of the country. Saudi Arabia is open about providing financial
and military support to the government of Yemen, but accuses Iran of supporting the
Shia rebels. For their part, the Iranians steadfastly deny
any involvement with the Yemeni rebels. 1. The Syrian War Is A Mess Of Multiple Parties
Proxy Warring With Each Other The Syrian Civil War started back in 2011
and is still ongoing. It was a consequence of the Arab Spring protests,
and got its real start when Assad used force to shut down protests against his government. After that, the Free Syrian Army (a mostly
Shia group) and a few other rebel groups made a loose coalition and a civil war broke out. At first the United States was supporting
the rebels to an extent, arguing that Assad’s regime was too extreme, and even accused Assad
of using chemical weapons against the rebels. However, soon ISIS got involved, and the United
States found themselves spending most of their time against them instead. However, even though much of the international
community did work to destroy ISIS as a common enemy, the battlegrounds of Syria have still
been used for a lot of groups to try to hash out old grudges. The Russians supported Assad from the start,
as did Lebanon and Iran. However, the United States initially supported
the rebels, and are still a great backer of the Kurds. But now, the US has their main support behind
the Democratic Federation Of Northern Syria, a different rebel group from the Free Syrian
Army and their allies (the rebel group originally backed by the USA). Israel claims neutrality, but has engaged
in airstrikes against Iranian and Lebanese positions in Syria, feeling that their presence
in the region is unwanted and encroaching toward their territory. Turkey, meanwhile, is an ally of the United
States, and has been fighting against Assad’s forces and helping various rebel groups, but
they are also fighting their own war against the Kurdish forces due to long disagreements
with the Kurdish people, despite the common alliance with the USA between them — and
they have been becoming increasingly friendly with Russia. .

Before the Gulf War: Iraq, Part I: 1920-1941 – At the end of WWI, the Ottoman Empire was
dissolved and the region of Mesopotamia, modern Iraq became a British government Mandate.
A Mandate was a League of Nations plan was where the victorious governments would take
control of an area which had been under control of the governments of the Central Powers with
the imperialist idea that these areas were not “advanced” enough to be able to run
themselves and so they needed to come under the control of one of the victorious governments
who would help them to become more “advanced” before they were allowed to be independent
(Treaty of Versailles, 1920: 15).
In other words, the governments which won
the First World War were going to get even bigger empires, and part of the land taken
by the British government was Iraq, as well as modern-day Jordan and other places, while
modern-day nations such as Syria and Lebanon were taken over by France’s government. The reason that the Middle East was divided
this way is because of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Trying to understand most of the conflicts
in the Middle East from the end of WWI to today without knowing about the Sykes-Picot
Agreement is like trying to understand the Korean War without knowing about the Japanese
Empire or WWII – you’ll be missing a really important part of the context. Sir Tatton Benvenuto Mark Sykes was a British
politician and government advisor on the Middle East during WWI who lied about being fluent
in Arabic and Turkish, and whose body was dug-up in 2008 by scientists hoping to find
particles of the Spanish Flu which killed him to use for research. François Marie Denis
Georges-Picot was a French diplomat, grand-uncle to a future French president, and had an obsession
with the French government gaining control of Syria (Sengupta, 2015; BBC News, 2008). In 1916, Sykes and Picot secretly drew up
plans to divide the Middle East between their nations’ governments. The plan was also
supposed to give the Russian government part of the Middle East too, but when the Communist
Revolution took place in 1917 and the Tsar was deposed they were no longer included in
the plan. The Sykes-Picot Agreement drew the borders
of the Middle East for British and French government political and financial interests
and with total disregard for the cultural, ethinc, religious, or political realities
of the people there. At the time, the British and French governments were both financing
and arming a revolt led by the Sharif Hussein bin Ali Al-Hashimi, custodian of Islam’s
holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. Hussein’s plan was to take advantage of the Ottoman
government and military being distracted by the First World War to lead a revolt against
them and set himself up as king of a nation composed of all Arabs. One of the most well-known
Western figures involved in this revolt was T.E. Lawrence, who’s also known as “Lawrence
of Arabia”. Hussein was looking to increase his power,
but he was being played by the British and French governments. To them, he was a useful
tool in their war against the Ottoman government and they promised him everything: guns, money,
and recognising him as leader of an Islamic Caliphate encompassing all Arabs. Hussein
quickly styled himself as the voice of all Arabs and the propaganda line of his revolt
was that it was being waged on their behalf to create a unified nation in which they could
live. The Allied governments knew this idea was completely unrealistic as they had other
plans, but funded Hussein right to the end of the war. By then, he was just an impediment
to their policy (Karsh & Karsh, 1997: 271-273). The British were also working closely with
Hussein's son, Faisal bin Al-Hussein bin Ali Al-Hashemi, who wanted a kingdom of his own. So, when the Bolshevik government found the
Sykes-Picot Agreement in the Tsarist records and released it to the world,
there was a major sense of betrayal among many in the Middle East. While the British
and French governments were funding them to fight and die with the promise of their own
independent homeland, they were actually planning to carve the region up according to their
own interests. The feeling of betrayal was only deepened when knowledge spread of the
Balfour Declaration, which would see the British government organise the foundation of a Jewish
State, Israel, in part of the land that had been promised to a united Arab Caliphate.
The 1920 Treaty of Sèvres saw the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Mostly for its oil-fields,
and because they believed it would act as protection for the oil-fields in modern-day
Iran, and also because it was on the route to their colony in India, Iraq was to be taken
over by the British government. The British government’s occupation of Iraq
caused, understandably, major hostility among the people. When they captured Baghdad in
1917, the British military declared that the region would be free and promised it a prosperous
future, but they actually had plans to turn Iraq into a very profitable possession, and
wrongly believed that the Iraqi people would be more than pleased to be under British government
occupation. Instead, a revolt broke out and the British government, in which ex-Ottoman
army officers played a leading role. There were also revolts in Kurdistan. The British
government would try to strengthen their claim to legitimacy by placing Faisal as King the
next year in 1921, despite the fact that he was not Iraqi and had no support in the country. An article in The Times newspaper summed up
the situation as: ‘How much longer are valuable lives to be sacrificed in the vain endeavour
to impose upon the […] population an elaborate and expensive administration which they never
asked for and do not want?’ (Fisk, 2006: 175-178). Through the Iraqi monarchy, the British government
controlled Iraq for the rest of the 1920s. One notable policy issue during this time
was the Mosul District, Northern Iraq, in 1924 and 1925. The British government wanted
it part of Iraq because they wanted its oil and because it would make their ally, the
Iraqi government, more politically stable; the Turkish government wanted it as part of
Turkey because they considered it rightful Turkish territory stolen from them by the
British government, and feared that under British or Iraqi government control the district
could become a centre for Kudish nationalists which they feared could inspire Kurds in Turkey
to try to win independence; the Iraqi government wanted it part of Iraq because they feared
that any territorial concessions to the Turkish government was just inviting future Turkish
administrations to push the boundaries of the borders further into Iraq, not to mention
the fact that the district was useful for wheat production and water; (Wright, 1926:
454) and the Kurds wanted it because they saw it as their homeland and wanted an independent
state. The League of Nations stepped in, set up a
commission, decided Turkey’s government’s arguments were invalid, and so Mosul stayed
in Iraq (Wright, 1926: 455-456). The Turkish government wasn’t very happy about it, and
a fear of Kurdish nationalism in this area would end up playing a huge part in Turkey’s
role in the Gulf War 70 years later. In 1930, the British and Iraqi government
signed a deal in which the British began preparing to end the Mandate of Iraq. However, the deal
meant that British troops would remain in the country for up to five more years in some
parts, such as oil-rich Mosul district; they reserved the right to take control of Iraq’s
travel and communications infrastructure if there were a war; and kept control of air-bases
in near places like oil-rich Basra (Anglo-Iraqi Treaty, 1930). This whole deal was essentially
written so that the British-based Iraqi Petroleum Company would have access to the country’s
oil and maintain the British government’s ability to regain control of the kingdom whenever
they felt they needed to. So, although the Treaty was supposed to be in preparation for
Iraqi independence, it wasn’t really going to give it to them fully. Iraq became “independent” in 1932, and
Faisal died in 1933. During the decade there were some protests
and revolts against things like conscription and political marginalisation (the Sunni minority
held the power and excluded the Shia majority) which were put down by the government using
aerial bombing and executions. The RAF kept their airbases throughout the decade, which
became the focal point of Iraqi nationalists’ hatred as they wanted the British to leave. One of the main figures in the new Iraqi Kingdom
was Prime Minister Nuri Pasha al-Sa’id. Nuri was an Arab Nationalist who saw working
with the British as the best way to achieve his goal: a united Arab nation ruled by the
Hashemite family which ruled Iraq. In 1936, a military coup took place as nationalist
military officers saw the new king’s regent, as the King was only a toddler, as too pro-British.
For the next few years, the Nationalist military establishment pressured the monarchy to carry
out a Pan-Arab foreign policy and distance itself from the British government, instead
looking for allies in their rivals, like the Nazi regime (Keegan, 2004: 19-22). When the British and German governments went
to war in 1939, Iraq cut diplomatic relations with the German regime.
But, Nuri was replaced as Prime Minister by Rashid Ali al-Gaylani in 1940, who began trying
to make contacts with Nazi officials. The war was a chance for Iraqi nationalists to
finally remove British government and military presence and influence in their country, and
they saw the best way to do this as allying with the Axis governments. In April 1941, Rashid and military officers
launched a coup against the regent of Iraq when he tried to force them to resign, setting
themselves up as the new government. Within a month, the new government was asking the
German regime for military assistance, which they covertly sent through Vichy-French government-occupied
Syria, and began actively trying to undermine the 1930 Treaty which allowed the British
government to keep so much influence in Iraq (Lyman, 2006: 11; 16; 31). The German regime sent a public letter of
support to the new Iraqi government, making them more confident in the face of British
government demands to step down. They didn’t think they had much to worry about from their
old colonial oppressor at this point, anyway. At the start of 1941, the British government
was losing WWII, being forced to retreat on almost every front. So the Iraqi government
was convinced that the British government was not going to last much longer. The British government felt that, if they
lost control over the Iraqi government, then that put their whole Middle Eastern empire,
as well as all the region’s oil, and also their colony of India, at risk of being lost.
They planned to invade Iraq and re-establish the rule of the pro-British monarchy. This
began in May 1941. By the end of the month, the British military
occupied Baghdad, the city devolved into a looting spree and anti-Jewish violence, and
Rashid’s government collapsed and fled to Berlin (Lyman, 2006: 86). In 1947, an Iraqi veteran of the war, Khairallah
Talfah, began looking after his 10-year old nephew, Saddam. He had already looked after
him before when he was a baby, when his depressed mother was unable to, but now Saddam had fled
from home because his step-father was so abusive. Khairallah was an adamant xenophobe, anti-semite,
and Iraqi nationalist who had spent 6 years in prison for his militant activism, and often
told Saddam about the wars Iraqis had fought against imperialist Western governments. He
taught him about the concepts of Arab Nationalism, and told Saddam that he was destined for greatness
just like his other family members who had fought for Iraqi independence and the dream
of a united Arab Nation. In 1957, at the age of 20, Saddam Hussein
would pursue the political beliefs and values his uncle taught him by joining the Ba’ath
Party (Post & Baram, 2003: 165). .

Iraq War 2003 Explained | Why Bush and Blair attacked Saddam Hussein – This is never-before-seen footage of 
British soldiers invading Iraq in 2003.
It was taken on the 24th of March and shows Royal 
Marine Commandos on the Al-Faw peninsula in the   southeast of the country. Within a month they 
had completed the first part of their mission,   capturing Basra while the Americans went 
north and took the capital of Baghdad.   Next, they had to find Iraq's brutal 
dictator Saddam Hussein and disarm him   of his weapons of mass destruction. There was 
one problem though, Saddam didn't have any. "And the people who knocked these 
buildings down will hear all of us soon" So why were these soldiers looking 
for weapons of mass destruction? "An axis of evil arming to 
threaten the peace of the world" And why did the Iraq war 
happen in the first place? "The security of the world requires 
disarming Saddam Hussein now" Well, before we answer those questions 
and more a reminder to subscribe to the   Imperial War Museums YouTube Channel for 
more videos just like this every two weeks. Why did we go to war in Iraq? I mean   if you drill down into it the big 
cause of the Iraq war really is 9/11. The terror attacks on the 11th of 
September 2001 shook the world. "Our very freedom came under attack in a series 
of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts." Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked U.S passenger planes 
and flew them into both World Trade Centers in   New York and the Pentagon in Washington 
D.C. Almost 3 000 people were killed. The idea that the greatest military and 
economic power in the world could be attacked   to that degree on its own shores is unheard of   and it really makes governments reassess 
the threat of international terrorism. But the 9/11 terror attacks were committed by 
Al-Qaeda who mainly operated out of Afghanistan,   while Iraq they had nothing to do with it. Things 
didn't add up so I put that question to Chris. What the hell has it got to do with Iraq? Well, 
I think I think this is the point. In order for   terrorist groups to attain that level of impact 
in their future attacks that what they might look   to do is to employ the use of chemical attacks, 
biological attacks, nuclear. I mean, that is the   threat they perceive. So George Bush in his State 
of the Union Address in January 2002 declares 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.   They could provide these arms to terrorists, 
giving them the means to match their hatred…   The price of indifference would be catastrophic." It wasn't that Iraq had a hand in 9/11, it was 
the fear that Iraq could have a hand in the   next 9/11. Which would be even worse thanks 
to the use of weapons of mass destruction.   The main source of those fears 
was Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is Iraq's dictator. He rules 
through fear, absolutely he rules through fear   and has a track record of using chemical and 
biological weapons against both his own population   and he used them during the 
iran iraq war in the 1980s. Saddam had even committed a genocide against 
the kurdish people in 1988. Killing over   50,000 according to Human Rights Watch, in part 
with chemical weapons. However, things had started   to change after the First Gulf War. In 1990, 
Iraq invaded the small, oil-rich nation of Kuwait   before an international coalition led by George 
Bush's father responded. They pushed Saddam back   into Iraq, imposed strict sanctions and introduced 
UN weapon inspectors who began disarming Iraq of   its WMDs. Saddam was left in power, providing a 
useful counter to Iranian influence in the region.   Successive U.S Presidents decided against removing 
him, reluctant to get bogged down in a long war,   but that perception started to shift after 
the NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The war in Afghanistan looks like it's 
going really well. They're starting to   hold elections, they're introducing democracy. The 
success of the initial invasion into Afghanistan   leads to the idea that something similar 
could be could potentially be done in Iraq. By this point President George Bush had 
already decided to take action against Iraq,   he was convinced of the threat they posed. 
But the U.S didn't want to go to war alone,   they needed allies. The natural choice being 
the United Kingdom across the Atlantic.  British Prime Minister Tony Blair already 
had a strong personal relationship with Bush,   telling him "I will be with you, 
whatever" in a letter from 2002.   But there was one big obstacle 
to British involvement in Iraq. They can't form a legal case   for war in Iraq based on regime change and so the 
legal basis for war in Iraq for the UK eventually   is to pursue any means necessary to ensure that 
Iraq is disarmed of weapons of mass destruction. The UK's preferred means of doing that was 
through the United Nations, using sanctions   and weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq peacefully 
if possible. In November of 2002, the UN passed   Resolution 1441 giving Saddam one last chance 
to give up his weapons of mass destruction.   The issue was he didn't have any. So why did 
Britain and the US believe that Saddam had WMDs? This is a tricky area now. Throughout 
the 90s the UN weapons inspectors   I think do a pretty good job of ensuring 
that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction   disappear. He wants people to believe 
that he's running these programs and he's   developing these weapons as it gives 
the impression he is a man of power. Remember that Saddam ruled through fear and the 
idea that he had weapons of mass destruction   was a major part of that. They not only 
helped suppress his internal enemies   but also ensured that Iraq remained an important 
player in the region as a whole. However, Saddam's   lack of transparency on that issue allowed nations 
to see whatever they wanted to see in his actions,   with intelligence reports simply used to confirm 
pre-existing beliefs. Iraq had allowed inspectors   back into the country under resolution 
1441, but without being fully compliant.   For the US that gave cause for war, but the UN 
Security Council still remained unconvinced. There are two main camps. So on one side, 
you have Spain, Britain and United States   who are working to build a coalition to 
support military action and on the other,   you have France, Germany and Russia who 
are opposed to military action. I mean   these negotiations going on right up until 
the invasion basically like 48 hours before. What eventually tipped the scales was the weather. If you try to invade Iraq in the 
summer it's going to be too hot.   A campaign against Iraq needs to happen 
early on in the year. George Bush runs out   of patience I think basically and issues a final 
ultimatum to Saddam Hussein on the 17th of March. "Saddam Hussein and his sons 
must leave Iraq within 48 hours.   Their refusal to do so will 
result in military conflict." As you might expect Saddam and his sons refused. 
The U.S readied for war while in the UK the House   of Commons voted overwhelmingly for the use of 
military force against Iraq. On the 20th of March,   the invasion began with these Royal Marines 
some of the first to set foot on Iraqi soil.   At first, the invasion was a huge 
success, with British troops taking   Basra while the main force moved on to 
Baghdad, but the worst was yet to come. The Iraq war is one of the most controversial wars 
since 9/11 unquestionably. The Iraq war has had a   massive impact on how military interventions 
are perceived. I don't think anybody could   necessarily have quite predicted just 
how catastrophic it would turn out to be. Thank you so much for watching, I hope you 
enjoyed that! This is the first contemporary   conflict we've covered in IWM stories so let 
us know what you thought of it. There's plenty   more to say about Iraq of course, the 
invasion and what went wrong afterwards,   so if you'd like to hear about that then do let 
us know in the comments. Finally, subscribe if you   want to see more videos just like this every 
two weeks and I'll see you in the next one. .