U.S. Policy Moves toward Regime Change in Iraq, 2001–02

George W. Bush (1946–), son of the former president who had held office during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, became president of the United States in January 2001. Bush vowed to follow a tougher policy toward Iraq than had the previous president, Bill Clinton (1946–; served 1993–2001). Following the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration launched a global "war against terrorism." In January 2002 Bush expanded the focus of this war to include countries that he believed supported terrorism, including Iraq.

Over the next year Bush pushed for "regime change" in Iraq, a term he used to mean removing Saddam Hussein (1937–) from power. He challenged the United Nations (UN) to enforce the agreement that had ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which required Iraq to destroy all of its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. In November 2002 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441, which authorized a new round of weapons inspections and warned that Iraq would face "serious consequences" if it failed to cooperate. (The Security Council is the division of the United Nationscharged with maintaining international peace and security. It consists of five permanent member nations—the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, and China—and ten elected members that serve two-year terms.) Although Iraq allowed the weapons inspectors to return, Bush continued to argue that Iraq posed a significant threat to world security. He claimed that Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction and could supply such weapons to terrorists. Despite a lack of UN support, the United States launched another war against Iraq in March 2003.

Bush launches the war against terrorism

George W. Bush took office as president of the United States in January 2001. During his presidential campaign, Bush had promised to take a tougher position toward Iraq. "I'm just as frustrated as many Americans are that Saddam Hussein still lives," the candidate told journalist Jim Lehrer (1934–) of the TV program "NewsHour" in February 2000. "I will tell you this: If we catch him developing weapons of mass destruction in any way, shape, or form, I'll deal with that in a way that he won't like." Bush followed through on his promise once he was elected. His first military order, issued in February 2001, approved air strikes against targets located near the capital city of Baghdad, outside the "no-fly zones." He said the strikes were intended to warn Hussein that he must respect the zones. (The no-fly zones were set up after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. They covered the northern and southern regions of Iraq, and were intended to prevent Hussein from using military force against his political opponents in those regions.)

Later that year, a national tragedy dramatically changed U.S. attitudes toward unfriendly governments. On September 11, 2001, radical Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes. Two of the planes were crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York City and a third plane was flown into the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C. The fourth hijacked plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field before reaching its intended target. The attacks claimed nearly three thousand lives. U.S. government officials soon traced the plot back to a radical Islamic organization called Al Qaeda, which was led by a Muslim cleric (religious leader) named Osama bin Laden (1957–). (The phrase al qaeda means "the base" or "foundation.") Bin Laden hated what he viewed as growing American influence over the Arab world. He formed Al Qaeda in part because he resented the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia during and after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Saudi Arabia is home to the sacred Muslim sites of Mecca and Medina, where millions of Islamic pilgrims travel every year. Like many other Muslims around the world, bin Laden felt that the presence of foreign troops in the Islamic holy land was deeply offensive to his religious beliefs.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration placed a new emphasis on national security. It announced a "war against terrorism" that at first focused on Al Qaeda and other known terrorist groups. U.S. intelligence experts quickly tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan, a country located east of Iran and north of Pakistan, on the edge of the Middle East. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, and it has struggled with political instability and violence for many years. In 1996 a radical Islamic group called the Taliban took over the government and forced strict laws on the Afghan people. Among other things, these laws banned women from working or attending school and required them to wear a tentlike covering called a burqa whenever they went out in public. Some Afghan women were stoned to death for disobeying the Taliban's laws.

The U.S. government demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda so that they could be tried for organizing the September 11 attacks. But the Taliban saw bin Laden as a hero to the fundamentalist Islamic cause and refused. In October 2001 the U.S. military launched Operation Enduring Freedom, a series of air strikes that targeted Taliban military capabilities and Al Qaeda training facilities in Afghanistan. The U.S. also provided military support to the Northern Alliance, an Afghan opposition group that had long fought the Taliban. Although the U.S. troops and their Afghan allies soon removed the Taliban from power, bin Laden escaped. Still, Bush administration officials claimed that they had won their first victory in their war against terrorism by destroying the home base of Al Qaeda.

The "axis of evil"

In early 2002 Bush announced a second phase in the war on terror. He officially expanded the fight against terrorism to include nations that sheltered terrorists or provided weapons, training, or financial support for their activities. Among the countries that he accused of supporting terrorists were Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

In his first State of the Union address, delivered on January 29, 2002, Bush labeled these three countries an "axis of evil." Although there was no clear link between these governments and Al Qaeda, Bush claimed that they posed a threat to world security because they could provide terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. "The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax [a deadly bacteria], and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade," Bush stated, as quoted by Online NewsHour. "This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like [Iraq, Iran, and North Korea], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." The phrase "axis of evil" was highly controversial, in part because it suggested an alliance between the three nations that did not exist, and in part because it reminded people of the Axis powers of World War II (1939–45)—Italy, Germany, and Japan—that had caused so much destruction and death a half-century before.

Over the next few months, officials in the Bush administration began talking about the importance of "regime change" in Iraq. For example, in April 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell (1937–) told a Senate committee that Iraq "remains a significant threat to the region's stability," and added that "we believe strongly in regime change in Iraq."

Bush challenges the United Nations to take action

In September 2002 Bush challenged the UN to take action against Iraq. He argued that the UN should force Iraq to honor the agreement that had ended the Persian Gulf War eleven years earlier. He claimed that the UN would lose its ability to enforce world peace if it allowed Hussein to continue ignoring the agreement. "Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance," he said, as quoted in A Time of Our Choosing by Todd Purdum. "All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" Bush also made it clear that the United States would act alone to disarm Iraq if necessary. In mid-October the U.S. Congress supported Bush's stance by authorizing the president to use military force against Iraq, although lawmakers urged Bush to exhaust all diplomatic options first.

As the threat of American military action increased, Iraq agreed to allow the UN weapons inspectors to return "without conditions." In November the UN Security Council responded to Bush's calls for action by unanimously (with the agreement of all) passing a new resolution regarding Iraq. Resolution 1441 declared Iraq in violation of earlier UN resolutions, authorized a new round of weapons inspections, and promised that Iraq would face "serious consequences" if it failed to comply.

Weapons inspectors from the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), led by Hans Blix (1928–) of Sweden, returned to Iraq on November 18, 2002. Their reports over the next few months were mixed. Sometimes Iraqi authorities were very cooperative. At other times, however, they seemed to be hiding information from the inspectors. The Bush administration was dissatisfied with Blix's reports and continued to pressure the UN Security Council to authorize the use of military force to disarm Iraq and remove Hussein from power.

On February 5, 2003, Powell appeared before the UN Security Council to make the United States' case against Iraq. He presented evidence that he claimed proved Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons. He also argued that Hussein was determined to build nuclear weapons. "We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program," Powell stated, as quoted by Online NewsHour. "On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons."

Powell presented spy photos of suspected weapons facilities in Iraq, tape recordings of intercepted telephone conversations between Iraqi officials, and statements from informants inside Hussein's government. He accused Iraq of following a policy of "evasion and deception" for a dozen years, intentionally hiding evidence of weapons programs from UN inspectors. Finally, he suggested that a link existed between Hussein and the Al Qaeda terrorist group, despite the widely accepted argument that the highly religious Al Qaeda would never work with Hussein's secular (nonreligious) government. On the basis of his evidence, Powell insisted that the Security Council pass a new resolution authorizing its members to use force to disarm Iraq. "We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibility for the citizens of the countries that are represented by this body," he said. "Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post–September 11 world."

A diplomatic battle in the United Nations

Powell needed to persuade nine of the fourteen other member countries of the UN Security Council, including the four other permanent members, to vote in favor of a new resolution. But several members of the Security Council, especially France and Russia, still had doubts about the use of force against Iraq. They did not believe that Iraq posed an immediate threat and wanted to give the weapons inspectors more time to complete their work.

All fourteen members of the UN Security Council made statements in response to Powell's presentation. Several countries made it clear that they still did not support the use of force against Iraq. "The use of force can only be a final recourse," said French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin (1953–), as quoted by Online NewsHour. "We must move on to a new stage and further strengthen the inspections." Chinese foreign minister Tang Jiaxuan (1938–) argued that the inspections should continue as long as there was "the slightest hope for political settlement."

But several other member nations expressed support for a new resolution. They agreed that Powell's evidence showed that Iraq was not complying with Resolution 1441, and they said the UN must be willing to back up its resolutions with force. British foreign secretary Jack Straw (1946–) noted that Hussein appeared to be "gambling that we will lose our nerve rather than enforce our will."Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio (1948–) felt it was clear that Iraq was not cooperating with the UN inspectors, adding, "Inspectors are not detectives, they are [there] to witness the voluntary disarmament of Iraq."

The UN Security Council also heard from Mohammed Aldouri (1942–), Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations. Aldouri claimed that Powell's information was wrong and accused the Bush administration of manufacturing evidence. He denied that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and insisted that there was no relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda. "There are incorrect allegations [accusations], unnamed sources, unknown sources," Aldouri said, as quoted by Online NewsHour. "The pronouncements in Mr. Powell's statements on weapons of mass destruction are utterly unrelated to the truth.... Iraq is totally free of weapons of mass destruction—a statement repeated by numerous Iraqi officials for over a decade." In mid-February Blix issued a report in which he challenged Powell's claims and noted Iraq's recent cooperation with the weapons inspections.

Bush pushes ahead with war plans

Despite the lack of UN support, Bush was determined to proceed with a war to disarm Iraq and remove Hussein from power. In early 2003 he began sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to the Persian Gulf. Bush received support from Great Britain and a few other countries, though many other nations opposed his plan.

On March 16 the United States, Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal announced that they would make one final push for a UN resolution. They wanted the Security Council to issue a clear ultimatum (final threat) to Hussein, stating that Iraq would be disarmed by force if it failed to comply with Resolution 1441 by a specific deadline. "Without a credible [believable] ultimatum authorizing force in the event of noncompliance, then more discussion is just more delay, with Saddam Hussein remaining armed with weapons of mass destruction and continuing a brutal murderous regime in Iraq," British prime minister Tony Blair (1953–) argued, as quoted by Online NewsHour.

In the tense discussions that followed, it became clear that France would veto any resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Since France was a permanent member of the Security Council, its "no" vote would automatically prevent the resolution from passing. (All five permanent members of the council have veto power over resolutions.) The United States and its allies then decided not to seek a vote on a new resolution. They were worried that if the resolution authorizing the use of force failed to pass, some members of the international community would argue that any later military action was illegal under international law. Instead, they argued that the use of force was justified under previous UN resolutions. They claimed that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441, which promised "serious consequences" for noncompliance.

A number of members of the international community expressed outrage at the Bush administration's determination to act against the will of the UN Security Council. Led by French President Jacques Chirac (1932–), these critics argued that UN weapons inspections were effective in disarming Iraq and preventing Hussein from posing an immediate threat. They also claimed that by invading Iraq, the United States would be defying international law, reducing the power of the United Nations, and increasing political instability around the world. "Nobody is supporting Saddam Hussein," said Canadian foreign minister Bill Graham. "But everyone recognizes in international politics you have to have a process where, before you invade a sovereign [independent] country, there has to be a reason for it, or we are going to lead to international chaos." The Arab League (an alliance of twenty Arab nations and the Palestine Liberation Organization that promotes political, military, and economic cooperation in the Arab world) issued a statement rejecting military action against Iraq and calling for economic sanctions to be lifted.

On March 17, 2003, Bush gave Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay, two days to leave Iraq or face a military invasion. This announcement ended six months of diplomacy aimed at securing UN support for the use of force against Iraq. "All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced [begun] at a time of our choosing," Bush said, as quoted in Online NewsHour. Bush also restated his belief that Iraq represented a serious threat to world security. "The danger is clear. Using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other," he declared. "Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety."

But Hussein remained defiant in the face of war. He called the accusations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction a "great lie." He also warned that an attack against Iraq might lead to terrible consequences around the

The Bush Doctrine

U.S. President George W. Bush justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the basis of a sweeping new foreign policy doctrine (a statement of basic governmental principles). The Bush Doctrine, as the new policy was called, held that the United States had the right to address perceived threats to its security or interests preemptively. In other words, the Bush administration argued that the United States had the right to attack another country in order to prevent a possible future war, even if that country had not yet made any aggressive moves toward the United States. Many people considered this to be a radical change in U.S. foreign policy, since in all previous wars the United States had acted only in response to an actual attack against the United States or its allies.

The Bush Doctrine was first developed after September 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked the United States. Afterward, Bush met with his top advisors in Camp David, Maryland, and outlined a series of phases in a global war against terrorism. The first phase involved a military strike against the people directly responsible for the September 11 attacks: Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist organization, and their protectors in Afghanistan, the Taliban government. In the second phase, Bush planned to extend the war on terrorism to include any group or nation that had the ability and desire to harm the United States.

Bush first described the new doctrine in his State of the Union address in January 2002. In this speech, he suggested that the old strategy of deterrence—maintaining a strong military in order to discourage other countries from attacking—was not effective against terrorists. He argued that the only way to defeat these new enemies was to strike first, destroying their ability to attack American interests before they could act. "At its most aggressive, this doctrine holds that the web of international institutions, alliances, and security arrangements ... that largely sustained United States foreign policy in the fifty years after World War II [1939–45] is no longer adequate in the face of shadowy global terrorist organizations and the states that aid or support them," Todd S. Purdum explained in A Time of Our Choosing.

Bush expanded on his new policy of preemption in June 2002, during a commencement speech at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York. "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long," he stated, as quoted in The Iraq War Reader, edited by Micah Sifry and Christopher Serf.

The war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battleto the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.... All nations that decide for aggression and terror will pay a price. We will not leave the safety of America and the peace of the planet at the mercy of a few mad terrorists and tyrants. We will lift this dark threat from our country and from the world.

In the months leading up to the 2003 Iraq War, the Bush Doctrine came under intense criticism both within the United States and around the world. Opponents questioned the wisdom of the policy as well as its legality under international law. Critics pointed out that although enemies of the United States might possess weapons of mass destruction, there was no way to be certain they ever intended to use them. Some world leaders expressed strong reservations about the U.S. government using its military power preemptively.

When the United States launched its attack against Iraq in March 2003, many analysts viewed the war as a test case for the Bush Doctrine. American officials used the policy to justify going to war without the support of the United Nations and in the face of strong opposition around the world. Immediately after the war ended, Bush claimed that the policy had succeeded in eliminating Saddam Hussein as a threat to world peace. "All can know, friend and foe alike," he said, as quoted in A Time of Our Choosing, "that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace."

Over the next six months, however, the postwar situation in Iraq raised significant doubts about the effectiveness of the Bush Doctrine. Coalition troops struggled to maintain security in the face of Iraqi resistance, and a massive and expensive search failed to uncover any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which had been Bush's main justification for going to war. Some critics suggested that the Bush administration should have waited to gather more reliable intelligence (information collected through spying) before starting a war. "If preemption was justified as the best way to stop terrorists or rogue nations from acquiring devastatingly destructive weapons, everything depended on being able to ascertain [find out], swiftly and correctly, how determined such nations and groups were to get such weapons, and how close they were to having them," Purdum explained. "The experience in Iraq showed how hard it was to know for certain what the threats might be."

Sources: Purdum, Todd S., and the staff of the New York Times. A Time of Our Choosing: America's War in Iraq. New York: Times Books, 2003; Sifry, Micah L., and Christopher Serf, eds. The Iraq War Reader. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003.

world. "When an enemy starts a large-scale battle, he must realize that the battle between us will be open wherever there is sky, land, and water in the entire world," he stated, as quoted in Online NewsHour.

The Iraq War creates controversy

Though the majority of Americans supported President Bush's decision to go to war against Iraq, it created controversy in the United States and in much of the world. The new conflict, which became known as the Iraq War or Gulf War II, marked the first time in history that the United States had launched a preemptive attack, meaning that it attacked a nation in order to prevent a possible future war, rather than in response to an attack by that nation against the United States or its interests. This policy of preemptive war became known as the Bush Doctrine (see box).

Much opposition to the Iraq War centered on Bush's decision to act without the support of the United Nations. Many critics argued that by acting alone, the U.S. government had reduced the power of the United Nations and alienated some of its closest allies. "We are really appalled by any country, whether it is a superpower or a poor country, that goes outside the United Nations and attacks independent countries," said former South African President Nelson Mandela (1918–), as quoted in War Plan Iraq by Milan Rai. "No country should be allowed to take the law into its own hands.... What they [the Bush administration] are introducing is chaos in international affairs and we condemn that in the strongest terms."

Some critics complained that there was not enough evidence to prove that Iraq posed a threat to world security. Others worried that the war would increase anti-American feelings throughout the world and lead to more terrorist attacks. The Church of England released a statement, quoted in War Plan Iraq, that said: "No convincing evidence has been presented to support the argument that Iraq is rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction program, or that Iraq poses an immediate threat to regional and international security. An attack on another Muslim country [in addition to Afghanistan], particularly one with no proven link to the September 11 atrocities, would be taken by many as evidence of an inbuilt hostility to the Muslim world." Finally, some accused Bush of pursuing the war either out of personal hatred toward Hussein, who allegedly had once tried to have Bush's father murdered, or because he wanted to control Iraq's vast oil reserves.

In the days leading up to the start of the war, large-scale antiwar demonstrations erupted around the world. An estimated 200,000 people marched down Broadway in New York City, carrying banners and shouting "No blood for oil!" A record 1,350 protesters were arrested in San Francisco for blocking intersections, smashing policecar windows, and vomiting on the sidewalk to show how sick the war made them. Rallies and marches took place on college campuses across the United States as well as in 350 cities around the world, including Berlin, Paris, and Cairo. An estimated 750,000 people rallied in Hyde Park in London to protest Blair's decision to support Bush.

The Bush administration did not waver from its position, however. It continued to argue that the United States was going to war to free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and to defend the world from a grave and immediate danger. The administration and its supporters claimed that replacing Hussein with a democratic government would bring peace and prosperity to Iraq and a new stability to the Middle East.