US-led intervention in Iraq (2014–2021)
On 15 June 2014 U.S. President Barack Obama ordered United States forces to be dispatched in response to the Northern Iraq offensive (June 2014) of the Islamic State (IS), as part of Operation Inherent Resolve. At the invitation of the Iraqi government, American troops went to assess Iraqi forces and the threat posed by ISIL.[111][112]
For the closely related operations in Syria, see US intervention in the Syrian civil war.
In early August 2014, ISIL began its Northern Iraq offensive.[113] On 5 August, the United States started supplying the Kurdish Peshmerga forces with weapons.[114] On 8 August, the United States began airstrikes against ISIL positions in Iraq. Nine other countries also launched airstrikes against ISIL, more or less in concert with Kurdish and Iraqi government ground troops.[115][116] By December 2017, ISIL had no remaining territory in Iraq, following the 2017 Western Iraq campaign.[28]
In addition to direct military intervention, the American-led coalition provided extensive support to the Iraqi Security Forces via training, intelligence, and personnel. The total cost of coalition support to the ISF, excluding direct military operations, was officially announced at ~$3.5 billion by March 2019.[117] 189,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers received training from coalition forces.[118]
Despite U.S. objections, the Iraqi parliament demanded U.S. troops to withdraw in January 2020 following the deaths of Iraqi Deputy chief of the Popular Mobilization Units and popular Iranian Quds leader Qasem Soleimeni in a U.S. airstrike.[119][120] It was also announced that both the U.K and Germany were cutting the size of troops in Iraq as well,[121] In addition to withdrawing some of its troops, the U.K. pledged to completely withdraw from Iraq if asked to do so by the Iraqi government and Germany "temporarily thinned out" its bases in Baghdad and Camp Taji.[122][123] Canada later joined in with the coalition withdrawal as well by transferring some of its troops stationed in Iraq to Kuwait.[122] French and Australian forces stationed in the country have also objected to a withdrawal as well.[124][125] The United Nations estimated in August 2020 that over 10,000 ISIL fighters remained in Iraq and Syria.[126]
The coalition officially concluded its combat mission in Iraq in December 2021, but U.S. troops remain in Iraq to advise, train, and assist Iraqi security forces against the ongoing ISIL insurgency, including providing air support and military aid.[32][33]
Background[edit]
Previous U.S. involvement[edit]
In 2003, the United States led a controversial invasion of Iraq, which was based on flawed intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaeda while under Ba'athist rule.[127] By 2007, the number of U.S. forces in Iraq peaked at 170,000 soldiers. In 2011, the U.S. had withdrawn most of its troops from Iraq and later kept 20,000 employees in its embassy and consulates, including dozens of U.S. Marine Embassy Guards and approximately 4,500 private military contractors. Following the withdrawal, the U.S. resumed flying surveillance aircraft in order to collect intelligence about insurgent Islamist fighters targeting the Iraqi government.[128][129]
Old enemies[edit]
After the invasion, the previous incarnations of ISIL (Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad [Jama'at], the Mujahideen Shura Council [MSC], and al-Qaeda in Iraq) interfered with occupation by the U.S.-led coalition. Jama'at and MSC started a campaign of terrorism in response to what resistance commander Abu Mohammed described as an occupation intended to humiliate and enchain the people of Iraq.[130][131] Attacks by Jama'at and MSC targeted hundreds of Muslim Iraqis, several U.S. soldiers, and included in 2010 a church full of Christians. These attacks are presumed to include the beheadings in 2004 of three American civilians, one British, one South Korean, and one Japanese civilian.
The United States had begun on 5 August 2014, with the direct supply of munitions to the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga forces and, with Iraq's agreement, the shipment of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program weapons to the Kurds, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and the U.N., in The Washington Post,[159] and the following days the American CIA secretly sent arms to the Kurds. Before 11 August, U.S. and allies had started rushing antitank weapons etc. to Kurdish fighters, and the U.S. intended to provide longer-range weapons.[160]
The United Kingdom placed the Special Air Service on the ground briefly and are airlifting munitions to the Kurds from an unnamed[161] Eastern European nation.[152][162] Members of the 2nd Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment, have also been deployed to the area.[163]
Germany has provided instructors to train Kurdish Peshmerga troops.[67] It is also supporting the Peshmerga with shipments of machine guns and ammunition, anti-tank missiles, armored transport vehicles and personal equipment like night vision goggles, helmets, vests, radio sets and other equipment. It hopes to provide equipment for 10,000 Peshmerga troops.[164] It has also flown wounded Peshmerga fighters to German military hospitals.[165] Germany has currently up to 150 paratroopers and other ground troops stationed in northern Iraq to train and advise Kurdish military forces.[166]
Australia in September began using RAAF C-17s and C-130Js to airlift arms and munitions to forces in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.[170][171][172] Then Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said in October his country could dispatch up to 200 special forces troops to "advise" local forces in a "non-combat" role.[173]
Croatia in late August began sending arms to the Kurds. The armaments from Croatia[174] are particularly useful to the effort because they are compatible with the Kurds' Russian made weapons systems which make up the majority of their equipment.
The Czech Republic has or will provide weapons to local forces.[67] The Czech Republic offered to provide 10 million rounds for AK-47, 8 million rounds for machine guns, 5,000 warheads for RPG and 5,000 hand grenades.[175] In September 2014 with the help of Royal Canadian Air Force it sent 8 millions rounds for machine guns to Iraq and in December 2014 another supply flight (provided by U.S. Air Force's C-17 Globemaster) with 5,000 warheads.[176]
Albania has or will provide weapons to local forces.[67] Albania in late August began sending arms to the Kurds. With the help of Western air transport systems, Albania has sent 22 million rounds of AK-47 7.62 millimeter bullets, 15,000 hand grenades and 32,000 artillery shells to the Kurdish forces.[177] The armaments from Albania[178] are particularly useful to the effort because they are compatible with the Kurds' Russian made weapons systems which make up the majority of their equipment.
Air operations[edit]
Types of aircraft used[edit]
In the first U.S. airstrikes on 8 August, armed drones as well as fixed wing aircraft: McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet fighters, were used.[188] The F/A-18s were that day launched from the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush. A Navy official said that the two planes involved in the airstrikes were Super Hornets from Carrier Air Wing 8, of Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia.[189] A number of Fairchild Republic A-10C Thunderbolt II's from the USAF's 163d Expeditionary Fighter Squadron were deployed on 17 November 2014.[190]
Air bases and aircraft carriers[edit]
The following is a list of publicly disclosed air bases that have been used for the interventions in Iraq and Syria. It is likely that there are other, yet undisclosed air bases being used. Turkey initially refused to allow using Incirlik Air Base for airstrikes against ISIL,[191][192] but changed their position in July 2015 when they allowed U.S. fighters to use both it and Diyarbakır.[193]
Reactions[edit]
The initial decision to intervene in Iraq was met with bipartisan support[438] in the United States Congress, albeit subject to a range of interpretations as to what constitutes legitimate intervention. Barbara Lee supported a strictly humanitarian intervention and opposed any mission creep[438][439][440] as did Richard Blumenthal who argued for humanitarian relief, but opposed a prolonged direct military involvement.[438][439][440] Bob Corker expected greater clarity with regards to the intervention's objectives, time frame and source of authorization.[438] while Dick Durbin opined that he, "still had concerns" despite assurances from Obama that no U.S. ground troops would be deployed in Iraq.[440] Congressional Democrats and Republicans who were more hawkish for their support for the intervention included the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin,[440] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,[440] chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein[439][440] and then-Speaker of the United States House of Representatives John Boehner.[438][440]
Despite the bipartisan support, the President's decision to re-engage the United States into a conflict in Iraq has attracted criticism from both the political left and right. Andrew Bacevich argued against military action, but not humanitarian assistance[441] as did Seumas Milne who argued against military, but not humanitarian intervention.[442] On the contrary, Cal Thomas accused Obama's decision to withhold American military assistance barring efforts by the Iraqi government to bridge the country's sectarian differences as tantamount to abandonment while an article in the Globe and Mail cautioned that an American intervention "would kill both ISIS and MCIR fighters as well as many Sunni civilians and fail to fix the underlying issues."[443] An article by the Associated Press wrote that critics of Obama drew a direct connection between his foreign policy approach that underestimated ISIS and his decision to withdraw all American troops from Iraq in late 2011.[444]
Mirroring the bipartisan congressional support for the interventions, polls, notwithstanding varying qualifications, show majorities of Americans supporting air strike in Iraq.[445][446][447][448]
The editorial boards of The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal penned editorials that were supportive of the intervention. Two editorials by The Washington Post argued that Iraqi's disintegration would threaten national, regional and global security[449] and described efforts by the Obama administration to create a more inclusive Iraq government as presenting the best hope for the country in its fight against ISIS.[449][450] Two editorials written in August by The New York Times also supported the intervention, praising Obama's sagacity in delivering the necessary humanitarian assistance to the Christians, Yazidis and other minorities on Mount Sinjar while eschewing the redeployment of American ground troops,[451] and describing the subsequent deployment of American military airstrikes and other forms of assistance as, although insufficient, a necessary component of a more comprehensive strategy to defeating ISIS.[452] An editorial by The Guardian written in June opined that ISIS's June 2014 Iraqi offensive invited foreign intervention that included the United States and that Obama's conditionalization of aid on Iraqis working together was in the best interest of all of Iraq's regions.[453] Similarly, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal written in August wrote of the strategic interest the United States had in defeating ISIL and positively assessed the efficacy of American airstrikes in "reducing the jihadists' room for maneuver and giving new confidence to the Kurdish forces."[454] While condemning ISIS's savagery and acknowledging the threat to American national interests in the Middle East that the group posed, an editorial by the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times argued that congressional authorization should override Obama's legal authority as the ultimate legal basis for the usage of military force in Iraq.[455]
Support for the intervention in the media was not unanimous. An editorial in The Washington Post criticized the American strategy of creating a unity government in order to fight ISIL was a mirage due to the country's political-religious cleavages and ISIS's numerical and technological superiority.[456] William Hartung, writing in Stars and Stripes argued that the intervention would result in mission creep.[457]
In an article for the BBC, Marc Weller, professor of international law at Cambridge University, argued that the U.S. airstrikes are consistent with international law. Specifically, he argued that: the government in Baghdad invited international forces to join in the fight against IS; the newly reconstituted and religiously representative Iraqi government has a positive obligation to deliver on its constitutional promises and defend its population from subjugation by ISIS; and foreign intervention exercising the right of collective self-defense on behalf of Iraq can involve forcible action in IS-controlled territories in Syria that is proportional to the necessity of securing Iraq's borders.[458] Similarly, Michael Ignatieff, professor of politics at Harvard University discussed the international dimensions of American intervention in Iraq in an interview with Der Spiegel in which he described the Islamic State as an "attack on all values of civilization" and that it was essential that America, "continued with their air strikes."[459]
Ramzi Mardini in The New York Times wrote an op-ed opposing armed intervention as it exacerbated the blowback risk of terrorism against U.S. although he did not object to humanitarian assistance aimed at helping the persecuted religious minorities living in ISIL controlled territories and instead called for greater diplomatic intervention in which the United States played a key role as an arbiter between Iraq's warring sectarian factions.[460] On the other hand, Aaron Zelin of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argues that ISIL are "likely planning attacks whether the U.S. conducts targeted air strikes or not" and that, in his opinion, the United States, "should destroy them as soon as possible."[461] Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the Republican party including John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and John Boehner have likewise called for greater military strikes in the region to contain the Islamic State.[462]
In an interview with the Atlantic, Hillary Clinton suggested that the current crisis in Iraq was a result of his [President Obama] refusal to arm Syrian rebels, which Obama, in a meeting with lawmakers before Clinton's interview, criticized as "horseshit."[463]
An editorial in Vox defined the intervention as being limited to Kurdistan, effectively allowing the Islamic State to control a large part of Iraq absent any other occupying power. The editorial argued that the stability of Kurdistan would make it a better ally for the US.[464]
The Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani condemned the US-led coalition airstrikes in Mosul in March 2017 which killed more than 200 civilians and accused the United States of committing war crimes, saying: "This war crime is similar to the behavior of Daesh [Islamic State] and other Takfiri groups in targeting civilians and innocent people and should be urgently addressed in courts of justice."