On March 20, 2003, the United States, alongside a coalition of allied forces, launched an invasion of Iraq, leading to the swift downfall of President Saddam Hussein’s regime. This military action, initiated 20 years ago, was predicated on the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed an imminent threat to global security. However, this justification was largely contested by the international community, and the ensuing conflict and its aftermath have been subjects of intense debate and scrutiny.
The image shows a US army officer removing a Saddam Hussein poster in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, symbolizing the toppling of his regime.
The Path to Invasion: Justifications and Build-Up
The roots of the 2003 Iraq War can be traced back to the 1990-1991 Gulf War, where a US-led multinational force expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Following this conflict, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 687, mandating Iraq to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs, encompassing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, as well as long-range ballistic missiles.
In 1998, Iraq ceased cooperating with UN weapons inspectors, prompting retaliatory air strikes from the US and the UK. The landscape shifted dramatically after the devastating al-Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001. The administration of President George W. Bush, in the wake of these attacks, began to focus on Iraq as a potential threat.
President Bush asserted that Saddam Hussein was actively engaged in stockpiling and developing WMDs. He controversially placed Iraq within an “axis of evil”, alongside Iran and North Korea, further escalating tensions. By October 2002, the US Congress authorized military force against Iraq, setting the stage for invasion.
Dr. Leslie Vinjamuri, Director of the US and Americas Programme at Chatham House, explains, “Many in Washington genuinely believed in the intelligence suggesting Iraq’s WMD capabilities and the imminent threat they posed.” In February 2003, then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council, urging authorization for military intervention against Iraq, citing alleged violations of UN resolutions related to WMD programs. However, the Security Council remained unconvinced. A majority of members advocated for extending the mandate of UN and International Atomic Energy Agency weapons inspectors, who had returned to Iraq in 2002, to further investigate WMD claims.
Despite international skepticism and lacking explicit UN endorsement, the US declared its intention to proceed with military action. It assembled a “coalition of the willing”, bypassing the need for further UN resolutions.
Coalition of the Willing: Nations in Support
While the US spearheaded the invasion, it garnered military and diplomatic support from a coalition of 30 nations. Among the most significant military contributors were the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, who actively participated in the invasion. The UK deployed 45,000 troops, Australia contributed 2,000, and Poland sent 194 special forces personnel. Kuwait played a crucial logistical role, permitting the invasion to be launched from its territory. Spain and Italy offered diplomatic backing to the US-led coalition. Several Eastern European countries, part of the “Vilnius Group”, also voiced their support, aligning with the US assessment of Iraq’s WMD programs and UN resolution violations.
The Dubious Allegations: Weapons of Mass Destruction Claims
The core justification for the invasion rested on claims of Iraq possessing and developing weapons of mass destruction. US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented what was purported to be compelling evidence to the UN in 2003, including the existence of “mobile labs” allegedly used for producing biological weapons. However, even Powell himself later conceded in 2004 that the intelligence supporting these claims was “appears not to be… that solid”.
This image shows Colin Powell holding a vial at the UN in 2003, part of his presentation claiming Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The UK government similarly released an intelligence dossier alleging that Iraqi missiles could be deployed within “45 minutes” to strike UK targets in the Eastern Mediterranean. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair asserted it was “beyond doubt” that Saddam Hussein was continuing WMD production.
Crucially, both the US and UK relied heavily on information provided by two Iraqi defectors: Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, a chemical engineer, and Maj Muhammad Harith, an intelligence officer. These individuals claimed firsthand knowledge of Iraq’s WMD program. However, both later confessed to fabricating their testimonies, admitting they disseminated false information to catalyze the allied invasion and the removal of Saddam Hussein.
International Division: Nations Opposing Military Action
Despite the “coalition of the willing,” significant international opposition to the Iraq War emerged. Notably, two of the US’s North American neighbors, Canada and Mexico, declined to support the invasion. Key European allies, Germany and France, also firmly opposed military action.
A map visualizes European countries’ stances on the Iraq War, differentiating participants, supporters, and opposers.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin articulated this opposition at the UN, stating that military intervention represented “the worst possible solution”. Turkey, a NATO member and Iraq’s neighbor, refused to allow the US and its allies to utilize Turkish airbases for the invasion.
Middle Eastern nations, including Saudi Arabia, which had supported the US during the 1990-91 Gulf War, did not endorse the 2003 invasion.
This map illustrates the division in the Middle East regarding the Iraq War, showing countries for and against the invasion.
Professor Gilbert Achcar, an expert in Middle Eastern politics at the University of London SOAS, noted, “The Gulf Arab states thought the plan was crazy. They were worried about Iran getting control of Iraq after the fall of Saddam’s regime.”
The War and Its Legacy: Consequences of the Invasion
Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced at dawn on March 20, 2003, with approximately 295,000 US and allied troops crossing the Kuwaiti border into Iraq. Simultaneously, 70,000 Kurdish Peshmerga fighters engaged Iraqi forces in the north. By May 2003, the Iraqi army was defeated, and Saddam Hussein’s regime was overthrown. Hussein was later captured, tried, and executed.
However, the central premise for the war—the existence of WMDs—proved unfounded. No weapons of mass destruction were discovered in Iraq. In 2004, Iraq descended into a violent sectarian insurgency, and subsequently, a civil war erupted between Sunni and Shia Muslim factions. US forces ultimately withdrew from Iraq in 2011.
The human cost of the Iraq War is staggering. Estimates suggest that around 461,000 people died in Iraq from war-related causes between 2003 and 2011. The financial burden on the United States is estimated to be around $3 trillion.
Dr. Karin von Hippel, Director-General of the Royal United Services Institute, reflects on the broader implications: “America lost a lot of credibility from this war. Even twenty years later, questions persist about the reliability of American intelligence.” The Iraq War remains a pivotal event in contemporary history, raising critical questions about the justifications for military intervention, the role of intelligence, and the long-term consequences of foreign policy decisions.
Listen to “Shock And War: Iraq 20 Years On” on BBC Sounds for deeper insights into the Iraq War and its enduring impact.
