Liberation or Occupation? How Failure to Apply Occupation Law During Iraqi Freedom Threatened U.S. Strategic Interests
Abstract
Prior to and during Operation Iraqi Freedom the U.S. Government asserted that coalition forces would be liberating rather than occupying forces to justify military intervention on humanitarian grounds to reassure domestic and foreign audiences that the United States had no imperialistic ambitions in Iraq and to avoid actions that might cause the Iraqi people to view invading forces as conquerors. As U.S. forces advanced into Iraq and other nations called upon the United States to act as an occupying power under international law the United States refused and maintained that forces were liberating Iraq. When the United States displaced the Iraqi regime in Baghdad U.S. forces did not immediately assume control of the city and restore order. The lawless period that followed cost U.S. forces the support of many Iraqis complicated post-combat governance and endangered the U.S. strategic goal of the creation of a democratic government. This paper argues that if the United States had planned and used occupation authority effectively the United States could have prevented many of the problems that plague post-war Iraq. It recommends that the United States incorporate occupation law into future operations.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- May 03, 2004
- Accession Number
- ADA423378
Entities
People
- Lyle W. Cayce
Organizations
- United States Army War College