Oxford Research Group critical of Bush war plans

Social justice news
November 2002

Coming to a shopping mall near you—global conflict?
Drought worsens in Ethiopia and Eritrea
Food crisis threatens millions in Zimbabwe
Oxford Research Group critical of Bush war plans
Supreme Court decision throws issue of juvenile execution to states
UN says progress in reducing hunger has halted
Vatican to UN: No development without human dignity

Oxford Research Group critical of Bush war plans
According to British foreign policy analysis institute, war with Iraq is likely to result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, carries a high risk of the use of weapons of mass destruction, and will lead to substantial regional instability and increased support for al-Qaida. According to the analysis, conflict in Baghdad will involve the use of area-impact munitions as well as precision-guided munitions, therefore civilian casualties will be high. A civilian death toll of at least 10,000 should be expected.

The worrisome outcomes of a major conflict in Iraq are detailed in a comprehensive report from Professor Paul Rogers of Bradford University, one of the foremost authorities on international security and a consultant to the Oxford Research Group. The commitment of the Bush administration to regime termination in Iraq is so strong that a war with Iraq early in 2003 is now highly likely, Rogers argues. Although the regime is weaker than eleven years ago, he believes it is probable that most of its elite forces will resist attack. The regime will seek to draw foreign forces into a war in the greater Baghdad region.

Using the most up-to-date information on how the U.S. might fight the war, and how the Saddam Hussein regime might respond, Rogers concludes that:

The Hussein regime will aim to draw American forces into urban warfare in Baghdad. A civilian death toll of at least 10,000 is likely, three times as many as died in the 11 September attacks. Rogers calls this figure a low estimate. The experience of urban warfare in Beirut and elsewhere suggests even higher casualties, he concludes.

Evidence of Iraqi military tactics in 1991 shows that the survival of the regime is the core Iraqi policy and that chemical and biological weapons are almost certain to be used, certainly against attacking troops and possibly against targets in neighbouring countries.

Severe casualties arising to Iraqi use of chemical and biological weapons could result in a nuclear response—the first use of nuclear weapons since August 1945. The British Government, in particular, has been candid in conceding this as a potential response to CBW use by Iraq.

Even on the "best-case" outcome of regime destruction with minimal loss of life, the effect of replacing Saddam Hussein with a client regime would be deeply counterproductive, according to the report. A pro-American regime in Baghdad would be seen across the region as a puppet government through which the U.S. seeks to control Iraq's oil, currently four times the size of total U.S. oil reserves including Alaska.

According to the report, this impression would be a "gift" to al-Qaida and other paramilitary groups who have longed claimed that the United States operates in the Gulf solely because of the region's oil reserves. Support for such groups would rise, with an increased risk of further paramilitary attacks on the U.S. and other states involved in the war.

The report concludes that destroying the Iraqi regime by force is a highly dangerous venture and that alternative policies should be urgently developed.

For more information:
Download the full report

Back to the top

Back to page top