1.

Introduction: Conflict Profile

The conflict between United States of America (US) and Iraq is one of the major event that occupying the history of modern world. Since 1990s of Gulf War, Both US and Iraq set up an unsatisfied of feeling towards another. The conflict between both country become worst especially after the attack of 11th of September 2001, which the World Trade Centre (WTC) had been hit by airplanes and collapsed all the way. After the incident that had killed so many lives, US accused Iraq for doing such thing and in 20th March 2003, George W. Bush, the President of US on that time, declare the war against Iraq. He consent the US Forces to begun a military operation into Iraq. Expecting a decisive battle in the streets of Baghdad, many Iraqis left the capital city a few days before the outbreak of war. Although the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq was relatively easy for the U.S. military, thousands of innocent Iraqis died. After the 2003 war, most Iraqis hoped to participate in the building of their country, as Iraq had always had human capital that was never given the chance to develop and become productive. In the first few days after the war in 2003 U.S. soldiers walked the streets of Iraq freely, ate at local restaurants and played with Iraqi children. According to the article in one web site, indypendent.org, this picture changed when the first attack on U.S. soldiers occurred in the Shorjah, one of the area in Baghdad A hand grenade targeted a U.S. Army patrol and killed one soldier. Two days later an armed man opened fire on a patrol in Fallujah. These attacks kept increasing until they reached more than one attack per day in 2004, 2005, 2006 and the first half of 2007. Under these circumstances, ordinary citizens lived at the mercy of a vicious war between local fighters and occupation forces. The result of this was more than a million injured and dead, most of whom were innocent bystanders. Clear evidence of this are the bullet holes and broken windows in many of the houses in Baghdad.

1st of May 2003, when President if US, George W. Bush announced that his mission towards Iraq had complete, based on an article in a web site, Iraqi have to accept that, after decades of authoritarian rule under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was invaded in 2003 by a US-led coalition of the willing. Ostensibly the invasion was initiated over the threat of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Saddams failure to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors, there are however many who question both the truth of this justification and the legality of the invasion as it occurred. Although the US-led coalition was reasonably successful in their initial aim of defeating the Baath party and the Iraqi army, the invasion triggered an insurgency that has caused continuing problems for the country.

2.0

The Timeline and Chronology of Invasion

3.0

Factors of Gulf War in Iraq 3.1 Oil Issues

Oil is another dimension of any strategy towards Iraq. Iraq has long been a major oil exporting power, and had produced about 22 billion barrels of oil at the time the Gulf War began. Kuwait was selling a lot of oil and it was making the prices of oil go down. So Iraq wasnt making as any profit as previously. The new border offered Kuwait greater considerable advantages at the expense of Iraq. Kuwait become greater control over the Ratga and Rumalia oil fields in its northern border area, and reduces Iraqi access to the port facilities at Umm Qasr. Because of that advantages created new political problem with Iraq that could prove more costly than the benefits are worth. After six days the Secretary General accepted the report, the speaker of Iraqs National Assembly stated that the new border would keep tensions in the region high. Iraq refused to accept the new demarcation and Iraqi editorials and its media made new claims to Kuwait as Iraqs 19th province. Iraq was thought that Kuwait was a part of it, which is led to hostilities. There were several oil mills along the border and Iraq was claimed that Kuwait was illegally tapping Iraqs mines. Importance of the doctrine:

Technology is worthless without a doctrinal approach. The doctrinal and training are powerful factor and can give small task forces superiority over stronger opponents. This was not demonstrated in Iraq, because the Iraqi armed forces wee too weak but its history provides other examples such as Germany in 1939 to 1942 and the wars between Israel with Arab states. Concept, doctrine training morale and leadership are still the most important factors for a countrys war fighting capacity. The United States led coalition began a massive air war to destroy Iraq's forces and military and civil infrastructure. Iraq called for terrorist attacks against the coalition and launched Scud missiles at Israel (in an unsuccessful attempt to widen the war and break up the coalition) and at Saudi Arabia. The main coalition forces invaded Kuwait and Iraq on Feb. 24 and, over the next four days, encircled and defeated the Iraqis and liberated Kuwait. When U.S. President George H. W. Bush declared a cease-fire on Feb. 28, most of the Iraqi forces in Kuwait had either surrendered or fields. Although the war was a decisive military victory for the coalition, Kuwait and Iraq suffered enormous property damage, and Saddam Hussein was not removed from power. In fact, Hussein was free to turn his attention to suppressing internal Shiite and Kurd revolts, which the U.S.-led coalition did not support, in part because of concerns over the possible breakup of Iraq if the revolts were successful. Coalition peace terms were agreed to by Iraq, but every effort was made by the Iraqis to frustrate implementation of the terms particularly United.

3.2

The Clan System

The Clan System contributed strongly to Saddams power base. The basic principles of clans and patriarchal forms of governments have the existed for along time in Iraqi society. They have

created a mutual dependency and a society a strong sense of loyalty among the members. Besides that, Saddam was regarded as the obvious leader of Sunni Muslims, by chosen to dominate over the numerous Shia Muslims and the Kurdish population. The reason for selecting Clan system and the family members to the highest governments position to ensure the closest circle loyal to Saddam as their leader. Ability of coalition forces to fight effectively at night: Such technology allowed planners to raise the tempo of operations to became the higher level than ever this before and its only the one inhibiting factor was the ability of the military personnel to keep up with the pace set by the equipment they used in war. A series of UN Security Council resolutions and Arab League resolutions were passed regarding the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. One of the most important was Resolution 678, passed on 29 November 1990, which gave Iraq a withdrawal deadline until 15 January 1991, and authorized all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660, and a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force if Iraq failed to comply. The United States assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq's aggression, consisting of forces from 34 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Spain, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself.[51] US Army General Norman Schwarzkopf was designated to be the commander of the coalition forces in the Persian Gulf area. Although they did not contribute any forces, Japan and Germany made financial contributions totaling $10 billion and $6.6 billion

respectively. U.S. troops represented 73% of the coalitions 956,600 troops in Iraq. Many of the coalition forces were reluctant to join. Some felt that the war was an internal Arab affair, or did not want to increase U.S. influence in the Middle East. In the end, however, many nations were persuaded by Iraqs belligerence towards other Arab states, offers of economic aid or debt forgiveness, and threats to withhold aid.

3.3

The Air and The Missile Campaign

Its the more striking aspects of the Iraq war was that United States and British. Command issued far fewer facts about the conduct of war and performance of weapons during the actual conflict than were issued in the Gulf War 1990-1991. United States has since has provided significant data on the site of forces, sorties numbers and the members also the type of munitions used. No data have been made available, however on the effectiveness of air and missile strike and few reliable data are available on the size and the equipment of the land forces engaged the effectiveness of their weapons. Five hours after the first attacks, Iraq's state radio broadcast a voice identified as Saddam Hussein declaring that "The great duel, the mother of all battles has begun. The dawn of victory nears as this great showdown begins." Iraq responded by launching eight Al Hussein missiles into Israel the next day. These missile attacks on Israel were to continue throughout the six weeks of the war. The Iraqis hoped that they would provoke a military response from Israel. It was expected that many Arab nations would withdraw from the coalition, as they would be reluctant to fight alongside Israel. Israel, at the request of the United States, did not launch counterstrikes, and all

Arab states remained in the coalition. The Scud missiles targeting Israel were relatively ineffective, as firing at extreme range resulted in a dramatic reduction in accuracy and payload. It was also feared that Iraq would fire missiles filled with nerve agents or sarin. As a result, the Israeli government issued gas masks to its citizens. When the first Iraqi missiles hit Tel Aviv, some people injected themselves with an antidote for nerve gas. Israel was ready to respond with military force to these attacks, but agreed when asked not to by the U.S. Government, who feared that if Israel became involved, the other Arab nations would either desert from the coalition or join Iraq. It was also feared that if the Israeli Air Force used Syrian or Jordanian airspace to attack Iraq, then they would intervene in the war on Iraq's side or attack Israel. Israeli policy for the previous forty years had always been retaliation, but Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir showed restraint and agreed not to retaliate in response to requests from the United States to remain out of the conflict

3.4

Air Campaign

The Persian Gulf War started with an extensive aerial bombing campaign on 17 January 1991. The coalition flew over 100,000 sorties, dropping 88,500 tons of bombs,[60] and widely destroying military and civilian infrastructure.[61] The air campaign was commanded by USAF Lieutenant General Chuck Horner, who briefly served as Commander in Chief. Forward of U.S. Central Command while General Schwarzkopf was still in the United States, a day after the deadline set in Resolution 678, the coalition launched a massive air campaign, which began the general offensive codenamed Operation Desert Storm. The first priority for Coalition forces was the destruction of the Iraqi air force and anti-aircraft facilities. The sorties

were launched mostly from Saudi Arabia and the six Coalition aircraft carrier battle groups (CVBG) in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. The next coalition targets were command and communication facilities. Saddam Hussein had closely micromanaged the Iraqi forces in the IranIraq War, and initiative at lower levels was discouraged. Coalition planners hoped that Iraqi resistance would quickly collapse if deprived of command and control. The third and largest phase of the air campaign targeted military targets throughout Iraq and Kuwait: Scud missile launchers, weapons research facilities, and naval forces. About one-third of the Coalition airpower was devoted to attacking Scuds, some of which were on trucks and therefore difficult to locate. Some U.S. and British special forces teams had been covertly inserted into western Iraq to aid in the search and destruction of Scuds. Iraqi antiaircraft defenses, including MANPADS, were surprisingly ineffective against coalition aircraft and the coalition suffered only 75 aircraft losses in over 100,000 sorties, 44 of which were the result of Iraqi action. Two of these losses are the result of aircraft colliding with the ground while evading Iraqi ground fired weapons. One of these losses is a confirmed air-air victory.

4.0

Cost of War

War, a touchy subject to discuss, much less figure out results of, has been proved inevitable in the current situation with Iraq. As history has shown us, war effects the economy in strange ways shifting its' balance daily. It effects and often destroys the core of some families. But more importantly and above all else, in major wars, a confirmation is established as to which country is the most influential, powerful, and financially able country in the world. War speaks volumes. War in Iraq, which was launched by the United States and the United Kingdom on March 20, 2003 and continues to the present, was intended to be a preventative war against terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction, as president Bush repeatedly claimed that "these weapons posed a significant and timely threat to the United States and its allies." As a matter of fact, the things that considered Iraq as a threat to global welfare had not been discovered, and in spite of the common thought that this war will produce many advantageous consequences, it certainly caused a greater number of unfortunate ones.

4.1

The Financial and Economic Cost

According to a paper prepared by Noble Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University and Linda Blimes of Harvard University, the costs of the Iraq War could reach $1 trillion by 2010 and $2.2 trillion by 2015. Even if American troops do not stay in Iraq until 2010 or 2015, the costs of the Iraqi war will still be substantial. As the Washington Post reported (April 27, 2006) the current costs of the Iraqi war will soon reach $320 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service. According to the Post article, "Even if a gradual troop withdrawal begins this year, war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to rise by an additional

$371 billion during the phase-out, the report said, citing a Congressional Budget Office study. When we factoring the costs of the war in Afghanistan, the $811 billion total for both wars would have far exceeded the inflation-adjusted $549 billion cost of the Vietnam War." As Robert Higgs author of Resurgence of the Warfare State, Against Leviathan and Crisis and Leviathan, and editor of the scholarly quarterly journal, The Independent Review, makes clear we are witnessing the latest episode in the federal government's expansion in response to another "crisis" or "threat" to America's security. Historically, when America has been at war, regulations have increased, taxes have skyrocketed, spending has exploded, and our rights have receded. After each crisis has ended, America is less free and prosperous because the welfarewarfare state has grown. He concludes his January 2003 essay with these words: "For conservatives who now claim to support both free enterprise and a U.S. war of conquest against Iraq, the lesson ought to be plain: they cannot foster free enterprise and support war the greatest of all socialistic undertakings at the same time. Unfortunately, it appears that once again they are willing to sacrifice free enterprise on the altar of Mars."

4.1.1 Oil

The price of oil is significantly higher today than it was before the War in Iraq. Even as the country went to war, it was recognized that it might have effects on the global oil market. Some of the remarks of those in the Administration seem to suggest that it may have even been a factor driving the country to war.

The higher price of oil brings costs and benefits. Profits of the oil companies have increased enormously. It is the one group (besides certain defense contractors) that has clearly benefited from the war. (Though popular discussions of the still not-clear motives for going to war often focused on oil, there is so far no reason to suppose that these benefits to one of the Presidents constituencies played an important motivation.) Here, concerned with the costs to the overall economy of these high oil prices.

4.1.2 Global Income and Price Impact The value of national income is affected by the prices of other goods the country imports or exports, and these too can indirectly be affected by the increase in the price of oil. If, for instance, a global increase in the price of oil leads to a decrease in the price of other commodities (because of a global slowdown), then America is thereby better off. These effects are complex and likely in any case to be small. There may be some commodities that the United States exports in which it has market power. In that case, we take firms as setting the price of exports to maximize profits. An oil price shock lowers income of buyers of American products, shifting the demand curve over to the left. The

income effect (at least for a small perturbation) is just the change in profits at the old price. If markets are fairly competitive, the effect is small, but especially in areas of the New Economy where mark-ups are large, the losses in income can be significant. We have not, however, directly tried to estimate the magnitude of these effects. Most macro-economic analyses, however, assume that there are more than just these (neoclassical or) supply side effects. This is especially important when the economy is operating below full employment. We noted that with the increase in oil prices, Americans are poorer; they have that much less to spend on other goodsincluding goods made in the United States. There will be a reduction in aggregate demand, and the reduction in aggregate demand caused by an increase in oil prices is likely to result in a lower level equilibrium output.

4.2

Human Cost

The impact of conflict on the health of both civilians and combatants generally arises both from the direct effects of combat battle deaths and injuries and from indirect consequences that continue to be felt years after the conflict ends. In Iraq conflict has continued in the form of localized armed rebellions, almost daily attacks of various kinds on combatants and civilians and attacks by occupying forces. The nature of this continuing conflict and the political control of information-gathering and dissemination make assessment of death and injury difficult. Yet such information is essential for needs assessment and planning of aid and reconstruction related to health.

4.2.1 Civilian Death Prewar planning by the US Defense Department supposed that the conflict would be short and reconstruction supported by a cooperative Iraqi population (Burkle and Noji 2004). Although the period of major combat operations was indeed short and President George Bush declared the end of the war on 1 May 2003, conflict continues between government and coalition forces and insurgent groups with a mixture of motives. Insurgents have used suicide bombing, car bombs and rocket propelled grenades against civil and military targets. Coalition forces have responded or in some cases acted pre-emptively with aerial weaponry to tackle threats in civilian communities. There are numerous reports of a high toll of civilian casualties from the war and ongoing insurgency. Analysis of a nationwide survey of 988 Iraqi households in September 2004 concludes that around 100,000 excess deaths have occurred since the 2003 invasion and possibly many more (Roberts et al, 2004). Violence accounted for most of these deaths, particularly air strikes by coalition forces. More than half of those reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the 18 months after the invasion was 58 times higher than in the 15 months before it. The risk of death from all causes was 2.5 times higher after the invasion than before. The scientists criticize the failure of the occupying forces to monitor casualties and the extent to which civilians are protected against violence, and call on an independent body such as World Health Organization (WHO) to confirm their findings. In the interim, civility and enlightened self-interest demand a reevaluation of the consequences of weaponry now used by coalition forces in populated areas, they conclude. The latest report from the Iraq Ministry of Health, published before September 2004, makes no mention of this extra burden of mortality and morbidity, and reports the leading causes of death

in people over five as cardiovascular disease, cancer, renal disease, respiratory disease and diabetes (Ministry of Health 2004).

4.2.2 Civilian Injuries and Illness No figures are available on civilians injured during the conflict. It is usually estimated that the number of people injured in war is three times the number of deaths, though recent analysis of terrorist bombings puts the figure of injuries as high as ten times the number of deaths (Tabak and Coupland, MCS in press). The number of traumatic injuries from shooting has increased greatly since the war, according to reports from major hospitals in the centre/south (WHO 2003).The future burden of disability from traumatic injuries will inevitably rise as conflict continues. There are an estimated 10 million landmines and explosive remnants of war in north Iraq alone that could take up to 15 years to clear (Pacific Disaster Management Information Network 2004). Security problems restrict demining and removal of ordnance in central and south Iraq, where urban and rural populations face increased risk from munitions storage containers, explosive ordnance, mines and cluster munitions used during the war, though the extent of the problem is unknown. Other countries undergoing similar conflict and social transition have experienced more domestic violence, child and spouse abuse, acts of public violence and mental/behavioural disorders (Ajdukovic 2004). There is no data in the public domain on the prevalence of such problems in Iraq, but they are likely to pose further mental and physical threats to health.

4.2.3 Combatant Deaths, Injuries and Illness Since the start of the war 1139 Coalition troops have been killed in Iraq: 1071 from the US and 68 from the UK (at October 28, 2004). Official figures cite 4194 major US injuries and 3536 minor. There is additional unknown mental and physical morbidity from war-related causes. Meanwhile little is known about Iraqi combatants injured during the war, estimated to range between 40,000 and 135,000 (Medact 2003). They have very little access to rehabilitative health services. 5.0 Current Situation