The Gulf War (August 28, 1990 – February 28, 1991) was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of approximately 30 nations led by the United States and. Iraq War; Part of the War on Terror: Clockwise from top: U.S. Information about Gulf War Veterans' illnesses and related VA benefits and programs. Gulf War. By Frank Smyth Attitudes toward international humanitarian norms and law by the belligerents in the Gulf War could not have been more distinct. The U. S.- led coalition commander, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, frequently consulted with law of war experts, including members of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), to ensure that specific military operations would not be seen later as violations. In fact, Schwarzkopf’s aides requested so much guidance from the ICRC that its representatives eventually stopped providing it, protesting that they were not legal counsel for the coalition. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, declined to meet with ICRC representatives. Of course, the Gulf War was a conventional conflict, and U. S.- led coalition forces enjoyed a great advantage of superior firepower. Though they arguably committed some laws of war violations that contributed to needless civilian deaths, allied forces were able to fight a relatively clean campaign and still win. The Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), codenamed Operation Desert Storm (17 January. Marking the fifth anniversary of the war with Iraq, FRONTLINE investigates what really happened during the invasion of Kuwait, the months of diplomatic. Saddam Hussein’s forces, on the other hand, committed many violations including grave breaches of the 1. Geneva Conventions and the 1. Additional Protocol I. Similarly, during the civil uprisings inside Iraq that immediately followed the Gulf War, Saddam disregarded humanitarian norms in crushing them. U. S. Elsewhere, they feared that such violations might break up the U. S.- led coalition of twenty- seven countries against Iraq, and, in particular, compel Arab States to withdraw from it. Saddam, meanwhile, has never demonstrated much concern for Iraqi public opinion, though, during the Gulf War, he did try to appeal to Pan- Arab sentiments. Saddam’s targeting of civilian population centers in Israel, in particular, was designed to bring Israel into the Gulf War and then, hopefully, split Arab States from the U. S.- led alliance. Each side in the Gulf War has been accused of violations of IHL; in some cases, the violation is legally clear- cut, while in others experts still debate. Allied forces destroyed many electrical power stations in Iraq. The attacks adversely affected Iraq’s civilian population, as they rendered sewage plants in many civilian areas inoperable and left many hospitals without power. A brief history of the Gulf War with animated maps, photos and links. HipHughes explains the major events that encompass the Persian Gulf War. Subscribe to HipHughes History, it's stupid easy and free https://www.youtube.com. Find out more about the history of Persian Gulf War, including videos, interesting articles, pictures, historical features and more. Get all the facts on. This led some observers like Human Rights Watch (HRW), a private monitoring organization based in New York, to ask whether the attacks violated IHL and its provisions against attacks on civilian objects. In particular, was the subsequent civilian toll excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack? Other observers, however, including the ICRC, saw the same attacks differently. While concerned about the civilian suffering they created, the ICRC nonetheless recognized that electrical power stations can be, and traditionally have been, legitimate military targets. Coalition forces also launched attacks that killed many civilians, raising questions about indiscriminate attacks involving needless civilian casualties. On February 1. 4, for example, a British plane fired a laser- guided missile at a bridge in the Al- Fallujah neighborhood west of Baghdad. It missed and hit a residential area, killing up to 1. Some observers, including former U. S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, claim that all such coalition attacks that resulted in Iraqi civilian casualties constitute war crimes. But without evidence that the neighborhood was intentionally, or negligently, targeted or that it was part of a broader pattern of indiscriminate attacks, this incident does not stand either as a grave breach or as a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions. Another tragedy had occurred the day before, when a U. S. CNN broadcast the carnage. Richard Neal in Riyadh later admitted that allied forces had intentionally targeted the shelter. He also said that coalition commanders knew that the shelter had been previously used by civilians in the mid- 1. Iran- Iraq War, but that it had since been converted to “a hardened shelter used for . Before they fired at it, allied forces, according to HRW, were obligated, to first warn Iraq that they now considered the former civilian shelter a legitimate military target. HRW added that, in its view, the evidence of the shelter’s alleged conversion to a military purpose was insufficient to overcome the presumption that it was still being used by civilians. Other observers, however, including lawyers for coalition forces, disagree. They point out that the shelter had been used solely for civilian purposes several years previously in the Iran- Iraq War, so allied commanders were not obligated to warn Iraq that they now considered the shelter to be a legitimate military target in the Gulf War. Coalition partners, however, have yet to make their evidence public about the shelter’s alleged conversion to military use. U. S.- led forces also killed many civilians when coalition planes, including B- 5. Basra. Coalition forces sought to destroy several specific military targets there. Some critics claim coalition forces had resorted to the kind of carpet bombing often seen in World War II, constituting indiscriminate attack, by treating a whole area containing several targets as a single target, in violation of Article 5. Additional Protocol I. No one disputes that the attacks killed many civilians (though no reliable figures are known) living in residential areas around the port. The question is whether such attacks violated IHL. Army spokesman in Riyadh later described Basra as a “military town,” which was quartering, among other forces, a strong contingent of elite Republican Guard troops. Lawyers for coalition forces blame Iraq for the subsequent civilian toll. They point out that Iraq was legally obligated to separate military forces from civilians and not to use the latter as a shield, and that the presence of civilians around military targets does not render such targets immune from attack. Nonetheless, coalition forces, critics argue, could have used more precise arms, such as cruise missiles or laser- guided weaponry, that might have accomplished the same objective with less collateral damage to civilians. Both HRW and the ICRC concluded the resort to saturation strikes claimed needless civilian lives and damage, but the controversy continues. Another controversial incident involving coalition forces occurred on the last day of the ground campaign, as an entire column of Iraqi troops was retreating from Kuwait. These troops had not surrendered, making them legitimate military targets. Yet, they put up only minimal resistance, while coalition aircraft dropped Rockeye fragmentation bombs and other antipersonnel arms, killing thousands. The ICRC concluded that the attacks “cause. Following the Gulf War, Kuwaiti authorities committed many human rights violations upon their repatriation. Mobs acting with the blessing of authorities harassed, detained, tortured, and sometimes summarily executed thousands, including Palestinians and others suspected of having supported the Iraqi occupation. Nevertheless, Iraq is responsible for far more violations of humanitarian norms and laws, as its forces entirely disregarded them throughout the Gulf War and its aftermath. On many occasions, Iraq intentionally targeted civilians, which is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. During its occupation of Kuwait, Iraqi troops also harassed, tortured, and sometimes summarily executed thousands of Kuwaitis. Other Iraqi abuses also stand as clear rules- of- war violations. Before the Gulf War, Iraq used civilians, typically foreign nationals, as human shields to seek to protect military targets in both Kuwait and Iraq. In Kuwait, this practice was clearly a war crime under Article 5. Additional Protocol I, because a state of war and occupation clearly existed with respect to Kuwait. Using foreign nationals as human shields within Iraq before the opening of hostilities between Iraq and the coalition forces is a less clear- cut case. In an unmistakable violation, Iraq, during the war, failed to register coalition prisoners of war with the ICRC. Iraq as well humiliated and tortured some coalition prisoners. Nonetheless, for these attacks to constitute war crimes, it must first be proven either that Iraq intentionally targeted the civilian centers in order to attack civilians directly or else failed to take measures to insure that military objectives were targeted. Though some of the thirty- seven missiles directed into Saudi Arabia appear to have been aimed at military targets, others appear to have been aimed at cities like Riyadh, the Saudi capital. Most of the thirty- nine Scud missiles fired into Israel and the occupied West Bank seem to have been aimed at cities like Tel Aviv, the Israeli capital. Three questions remain open. Could the missiles Iraq fired at population centers reasonably be shown to have been aimed at legitimate military targets in those cities within the limits of Iraqi technological capabilities? Did anticipated specific and concrete military benefit of such attacks for Iraq outweigh civilian costs (excluding from the calculation the illegal military advantage gained from terror attacks on civilians themselves)? On the other hand, did coalition authorities violate their IHL duties by commingling civilians with military targets in Saudi Arabia? It would appear in fact as difficult to prove illegality in the Scud attacks on Saudi Arabia as it would the coalition attacks on Basra and Baghdad. But the Scud attacks on Israel would appear to be the most difficult for Iraq to justify, given that coalition forces were not present in Israel, nor was Israel a party to the conflict. Absent some substantial evidence showing that Israel was about to enter the war against Iraq, thus justifying a preemptive military strike against legitimate military targets, the Scud attacks against Israel would appear to have been terror attacks directed against civilians. It is widely acknowledged that Iraq. Military. com Resources. Error. Sorry, there was an error loading the requested file,If this error persists, please contact Military.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2016
Categories |