War and Conflict Journal

Iraq War Battles

Was the Iraq War worth it?  With nearly 5,000 American dead, hundreds of thousands (at least) Iraqi dead, a Shiite regime in power in Baghdad, increasing tensions between the Arab Iraqis and the Kurdish Iraqis, and a plethora of other issues, was the war worth it from the American Perspective?

For more resources  on the Iraq War, see http://www.historyguy.com/iraq_war_links.html
Iraq
War Combat Video

Feel free to add your comments below on the worth of the Iraq War.

Sgt. Ken Kozakiewicz mourns his friend

Images and Pictures from the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq are at: http://www.historyguy.com/gulf_war_images_pictures.htm

January 16, 2011 marks the 20th anniversary of the 1991 Gulf War (in America; in the Gulf itself, the date had already turned to the 17th).  For more information on the war and to see links to articles and news on the anniversary, go to: http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar.html#gulfwar20thanniversary

Iranian forces crossed the border into northern Iraq to strike at a Kurdish Iranian rebel group in retaliation for a  bombing inside Iran that killed 12  in a military parade in the town of Mahabad.  Iran claimed to have killed 30 rebels on the Iraqi side of the border.

Two new pages uploaded on the History Guy Website:
Wars and Conflicts of the Philippines http://www.historyguy.com/wars_of_the_philippines.htm
This page includes info on the 7 coup attempts on the recently deceased former Philippines President Corazon Aquino.
and a page dealing with the recently-discussed controversy over the small number of Medals of Honor awarded to American forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Medals of Honor Awarded for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

http://www.historyguy.com/medals_of_honor_iraq_afghanistan.htm

The Iraq War began on March 19, 2003 with the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship.  As the 6th anniversary of that invasion passes, U.S. war deaths reach 4,260.  British deaths are holding at 179 deaths.

For more information: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/22/america/Iraq-US-Deaths.php

As of Saturday, March 21, 2009, at least 4,260 members of the U.S. military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The figure includes eight military civilians killed in action. At least 3,425 military personnel died as a result of hostile action, according to the military’s numbers.

The AP count is one fewer than the Defense Department’s tally, last updated Friday at 10 a.m. EDT.

The British military has reported 179 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia and Georgia, three each; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand and Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan and South Korea, one death each.

Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/03/22/america/Iraq-US-Deaths.php

The American helicopter raid into Syria this week which targeted an al-Qaida leader based there, may presage a similar attack into Iran in the near future. Just as missile strikes and a very similar commando raid into Pakistan's border region in September may have foreshadowed this raid into Syria's border area, the next logical target in the ongoing attempt to curtail cross-border aid and supply to al-Qaida and other insurgents into Iraq may be Iran.

Many analysts and pundits have mulled over the possibility of an "October Surprise" in the middle east which could affect the American Presidential race.  The theory being that an international crisis or event could highlight the foreign policy experience of John McCain over his opponent, Barack Obama.  Also, if a major military event took place, the American public may automatically back the party in power (the Republican), and this close to Election Day, that may translate into more votes for McCain.

This theory is faulty on several fronts.  First, the economy will continue to be Issue #1, and little short of a major terror attack on the U.S. homeland will change that.  Second, at this point in the war and in the election campaign, the American public would likely turn on the Bush Administration and, by extension, John McCain if it perceived an attempt to manipulate the election with the lives of American service members.

And then there is the real danger.  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been clear that they view the development of Iranian nuclear weapons to be a grave and mortal danger the the United States and its allies, particularly Israel.  Rather than start something with Iran before the election, in what the history books and public opinion would surely condemn as a blatant and heavy-handed attempt to influence the election, it is far more likely that the long-feared "Iran War" will begin after Barack Obama wins the election, which, as of this writing, seems very likely to occur.

Were McCain to take office, Bush and Cheney would likely feel assured that their policies on Iran and the nuclear issue would be carried on by McCain.  The same is not true of a likely Obama Administration.  Thus, in order to save America, Israel, and much of Europe from a nuclear-armed Iran, it is highly likely that at some point in the 77 day transition period between Election Day and Inauguration Day, an incident will occur, or a commando raid similar to those carried out on Pakistan and Syria will take place on Iranian soil.  Or, Israel may elect to attack Iran itself, with the full assurance of American support and involvement.

If Obama wins, watch for signs of military buildup and preparation.  This Iran War scenario is all the more likely after the raids on Pakistan and Syria.  After all, what do President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have to worry about if the American public disapproves of such a war?  Elect them out of office?  President Obama may be faced with a much more dangerous, chaotic, and violent world than now exists.

The leader of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, known by the names Abu Hamza al-Muhajer and Abu Ayyub al-Masri, and several of his top lieutenants have recently left Iraq for Afghanistan, according to group leaders and Iraqi intelligence officials, a possible further sign of what Iraqi and U.S. officials call growing disarray and weakness in the organization. It is believed that these al-Qaeda leaders see more prospects for success in Afghanistan and Pakistan than in Iraq.

Washington Post Article:

Turkish forces withdrew from orthern Iraq on Feb. 29, concluding an eight-day offensive in the northern Iraqi mountains against the PKK Kurdish rebels who use Iraq as a save haven.

The Turkish military claims to have killed 237 PKK rebels, while losing 27 of its own men.

Turkish tank during the anit-PKK offensive in Northern Iraq, February, 2008.

Photo by Reuters

Turkish forces bombed Kurdish PKK rebels based in northern Iraq in aerial attacks on December 1st and on December 16th, with both attacks aided by intelligence supplied by the United States. Earlier in the Autumn, Turkey hinted at an invasion of northern Iraq to get at the rebels, a move opposed by both the U.S. and the Iraqi government.

While the Turks are within their rights to strike at an enemy combatant force with whom they have been at war with since the 1980s, the U.S. is not the sovereign power in Iraq; officially, sovereign power rests with the Iraqi government in Baghdad, and reports indicate that the government, especially the Kurdish members of the government are quite angry at this attack and at U.S. complicity.

While the U.S. can claim that it is aiding a fellow NATO member defend itself, and that the PKK is considered a terrorist group, allowing the Turks to strike inside Iraq does open up the question of what the Bush Administration would do if Iran launched a similar cross-border strike against their own Kurdish rebels who also use northern Iraq as a base.

U.S. Helps Turkey Hit Rebel Kurds In Iraq: Intelligence Role Could Complicate Diplomacy–Washington Post Staff, December 18, 2007

Turkey’s U.S.-Backed Strike in Iraq–Time, Dec. 17, 2007