.
.
.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDJ5w04rdPQ
And when they did, heed his call to revolution, waiting for American liberation, the USA stood down and betrayed the people of Iraq.
Mass butchering followed, especially in Southern Iraq.
12 years of genocide and American inactivity.
Instead, no-fly Zones were established SYMBOLICALLY as if to say the USA was there protecting the people, but when you harm innocent civilians, Saddam did not need planes or helicopters to do it. Just his Republican Guards and the Iraqi Muqqabarat, and finally the Peoples Fedayeen (with Darth Vader helmets).
Estimates of the number of civilians who died as a result of Saddam Hussein's brutal suppression of the 1991 Shi'a uprising in Southern Iraq vary, but generally range from 30,000 to 100,000 people, with some estimates as high as 180,000. The death toll includes both civilians and rebels, as loyalist forces often did not distinguish between them.
Key points regarding the casualties:Brutal Tactics Saddam's forces, spearheaded by the Republican Guard, used indiscriminate force against the population, including shelling cities, attacking holy shrines, and using helicopter gunships against fleeing civilians.
Mass Graves Thousands of people were summarily executed or "disappeared" and buried in mass graves, many of which were uncovered after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003.
Human Rights Reports Human Rights Watch and the U.S. Department of State documented extensive human rights abuses, including the execution of men in hospitals and on the streets, and the use of torture.
"Chemical Ali" Trial The trial of Saddam's aides, including Ali Hassan al-Majid, for their role in the mass killings estimated the number of people murdered in the suppression at between 60,000 and 100,000.
The suppression was a swift and brutal campaign that followed the end of the first Gulf War and the call by the U.S. for the Iraqi people to rise up against the regime, a call that was not followed by military support.
WE HOPE HISTORY DOES NOT REPEAT ITSELF.
___________________________________________________
The Betrayal of the Iraqi People: American Culpability in the 1991 Uprising and Its Genocidal Suppression by Saddam
Executive Summary
The 1991 Iraqi uprising represents one of the most shameful episodes in American foreign policy—a deliberate encouragement of rebellion followed by calculated abandonment that enabled mass atrocities approaching genocidal proportions.
President George H.W. Bush's administration publicly called upon the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam Hussein, only to stand aside as between 50,000 and 100,000 civilians were systematically massacred by Iraqi security forces.
This analysis demonstrates that the United States bears significant moral and legal culpability for these atrocities through its acts of commission (incitement to revolt) and omission (failure to protect those who responded to American calls), establishing a pattern of complicity that meets several criteria under international humanitarian law.
The American Call to Arms: Incitement and Encouragement
Presidential Declarations and CIA Operations
On February 15, 1991, as Operation Desert Storm devastated Iraqi military positions in Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush delivered a calculated message via Voice of America radio, directly addressing the Iraqi people. Standing before workers at a Raytheon missile plant in Massachusetts, Bush declared: "There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: and that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside." This was not diplomatic rhetoric or abstract encouragement—it was a direct call to action broadcast into Iraqi homes through official American channels.[1][2]
The message was reinforced nine days later on February 24, 1991, when the Voice of Free Iraq, a clandestine radio station allegedly funded and operated by the CIA, broadcast explicit instructions for Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein. The speaker, Salah Omar al-Ali, an exiled former Ba'athist official, delivered this message just four days before the Gulf War ceasefire was signed, creating the impression that American support for an uprising was imminent and substantial.[1]
These were not isolated statements. Bush administration officials repeatedly suggested that regime change was desirable, creating reasonable expectations among Iraqi dissidents and the general population that America would support those who heeded the call. As one Iraqi-American researcher documented from oral histories collected in Michigan's Iraqi community, "Bush used identical language twice, first at the White House and then later at a Raytheon defense plant in Massachusetts, stating: 'I call on the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.'"[3]
Presidential Declarations and CIA Operations
On February 15, 1991, as Operation Desert Storm devastated Iraqi military positions in Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush delivered a calculated message via Voice of America radio, directly addressing the Iraqi people. Standing before workers at a Raytheon missile plant in Massachusetts, Bush declared: "There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: and that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside." This was not diplomatic rhetoric or abstract encouragement—it was a direct call to action broadcast into Iraqi homes through official American channels.[1][2]
The message was reinforced nine days later on February 24, 1991, when the Voice of Free Iraq, a clandestine radio station allegedly funded and operated by the CIA, broadcast explicit instructions for Iraqis to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein. The speaker, Salah Omar al-Ali, an exiled former Ba'athist official, delivered this message just four days before the Gulf War ceasefire was signed, creating the impression that American support for an uprising was imminent and substantial.[1]
These were not isolated statements. Bush administration officials repeatedly suggested that regime change was desirable, creating reasonable expectations among Iraqi dissidents and the general population that America would support those who heeded the call. As one Iraqi-American researcher documented from oral histories collected in Michigan's Iraqi community, "Bush used identical language twice, first at the White House and then later at a Raytheon defense plant in Massachusetts, stating: 'I call on the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.'"[3]
The Cynical Calculation: Military Coup vs. Popular Uprising
Yet declassified documents and subsequent memoirs reveal a profound cynicism at the heart of American policy. In his 1996 memoir My American Journey, Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted that while Bush's rhetoric "may have given encouragement to the rebels," the administration's "practical intention was to leave Baghdad enough power to survive as a threat to Iran." A former Bush aide was more explicit: "We didn't expect a general public uprising. What they and Bush had in mind was encouraging senior leaders of the Iraqi army or Ba'ath Party to revolt."[4][1]
This admission is devastating. The Bush administration wanted a surgical military coup that would replace Saddam with a more compliant strongman while preserving Iraq's military structure as a bulwark against Iran. They did not want—and actively worked to prevent—a genuine popular revolution that might fragment Iraq or bring Iranian-aligned Shia politicians to power. When the Iraqi people responded to Bush's public call with exactly the kind of grassroots uprising the administration feared, American policy shifted from encouragement to active obstruction.
The Uprising: From Triumph to Massacre
Initial Success and Mass Participation
The uprising began spontaneously in Basra on March 1, 1991—one day after the Gulf War ceasefire—when a tank gunner returning from Kuwait's defeat fired a shell into an enormous portrait of Saddam Hussein hanging over the city's main square. Other soldiers applauded, and within hours, the rebellion spread like wildfire through southern Iraq's Shia-majority cities. In the north, Kurdish forces seized the opportunity to challenge Ba'athist rule in their ancestral territories.[5][1]
The scale and speed of the uprising exceeded all expectations. Within two weeks, rebels controlled most of Iraq's cities and provinces, with 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces falling to insurgent forces. The participants represented Iraq's diverse opposition to Ba'athist tyranny: military mutineers, Shia Islamists, Kurdish nationalists, Kurdish Islamists, and far-left groups united in their determination to end Saddam's dictatorship. For a brief moment, it appeared that Iraq might genuinely liberate itself from one of the 20th century's most brutal dictatorships.[6][1]
The Killing Begins: Systematic Atrocities
But the rebellion's initial success concealed a fatal vulnerability. The rebels lacked heavy weapons, anti-aircraft missiles, and the organizational capacity to coordinate their efforts across Iraq's vast territory. Most critically, they lacked the anticipated American support that Bush's broadcasts had led them to expect. As the Iraqi Republican Guard regrouped and counterattacked, the uprising's lack of external support became catastrophic.
By March 4, 1991, Ba'athist forces had regained the initiative in Basra, launching what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented as a "brutal counter-offensive characterised by the arbitrary killing of civilians." Government tanks fired indiscriminately at buildings and civilians, while Republican Guardsmen engaged in systematic massacres of the civilian population. The methods employed were designed not merely to suppress rebellion but to terrorize entire communities into submission.[5]
The atrocities documented across southern and northern Iraq constitute some of the most horrific human rights violations of the post-Cold War period:
Mass Executions and Public Terror: In Al-Najaf, one of Shia Islam's holiest cities, witnesses reported that groups of up to 50 suspected opposition supporters were arrested, lined up, blindfolded with their hands bound, and shot in front of their families. Other detainees were doused with petrol and set alight, while large numbers were detained in a local hotel that was subsequently destroyed by heavy artillery, burying everyone inside. The bodies of executed civilians were tied to tanks and dragged through the streets, or left hanging from electricity pylons as warnings to the population.[7][8]
Hospital Massacres: At Saddam Hospital in Najaf, Iraqi soldiers surrounded the facility where wounded insurgents and civilians were receiving treatment. Witnesses reported that soldiers threw patients out of third-floor windows, killing an estimated 60-70 people in this manner. Doctors were executed with knives rather than firearms, and female medical staff had their clothing torn off and were sexually assaulted before being killed.[8][7]
Sexual Violence as a Weapon: Rape was systematically employed as a political tool throughout the suppression campaign. The European Union's 2002 resolution on Iraq's human rights crisis specifically condemned "the use of rape as a political tool" by Saddam Hussein's government.[9][10]
Civilian Populations as Human Shields: In multiple cities, Iraqi forces placed women and children on top of tanks, which were then used to bombard residential areas. This tactic served the dual purpose of preventing rebel attacks and terrorizing civilian populations.[7][8]
Religious and Cultural Desecration: In Najaf, home to the shrine of Imam Ali (one of Shia Islam's most sacred sites), refugees reported that the shrine suffered bomb damage and its gates were destroyed. Opposition fighters were executed in the city center, and tanks bore slogans reading "No Shiites after today."[8]
Industrial-Scale Killing: In al-Hilla on March 19, over 70 unarmed civilians were executed. Between March 20-29 in al-Samawa, Iraqi soldiers conducted house-to-house searches, summarily executing scores of people and using civilian women as human shields to enter the town. In Basra, Karbala, and other cities, the pattern was identical: mass arrests followed by firing squad executions, bodies left in public spaces as warnings.[5][7]
Karbala: A City Under Siege
The city of Karbala, home to the shrine of Imam Husayn (the grandson of Prophet Muhammad and a central figure in Shia Islam), experienced particularly intense violence. The Republican Guard's Hammurabi and Medina divisions surrounded the city with tanks and artillery, then shelled it continuously for one week, killing thousands and destroying entire neighborhoods. This was not counterinsurgency—it was collective punishment designed to break the Shia population's will to resist.[11]
Refugees fleeing the violence told harrowing stories. One witness described how Iraqi forces ordered civilians in mid-March to leave their homes in al-Najaf and walk north toward Karbala. While on the al-Najaf-Karbala road, Iraqi forces separated men from women and children, then summarily executed the men by firing squad. Scores died, and their bodies were buried in mass graves behind al-Salam Hotel on the road between the two cities.[7]
The Shame of American Inaction: Policy of Abandonment
The Helicopter Betrayal
Perhaps no single decision better encapsulates American complicity in the massacre than General Norman Schwarzkopf's agreement to allow Iraqi forces to fly helicopters. At the Safwan Airfield ceasefire negotiations on March 3, 1991, an Iraqi general requested permission to use helicopters for transporting government officials, citing destroyed transportation infrastructure. Schwarzkopf, acting without explicit Pentagon or White House instructions, accepted this request.[12][13][1]
Almost immediately, Iraqi forces deployed these helicopters as gunships against the uprising. The rebels, already outgunned by Iraqi armor and artillery, had few heavy weapons and virtually no surface-to-air missiles, leaving them defenseless against helicopter attacks. One American official later reflected: "I think [General Schwarzkopf] maybe meant 'It's OK to come in and out of these peace talks by helicopter,' but they [the Iraqis] said, 'Oh terrific, we will fly our helicopters all over the country,' and proceeded to do so and we did nothing."[14][15][1]
This was not mere negligence—it was a catastrophic failure of oversight that directly enabled mass killing. Kurdish forces in the north attempted to delay the Republican Guard's advance to allow civilian evacuations to Turkey and Iran, but were "inevitably crushed by superior fire-power of regime forces," including the helicopter gunships Schwarzkopf had authorized.[14]
Proximity and Capability: American Forces as Witnesses
The moral obscenity of American policy becomes even clearer when considering the proximity of U.S. forces to the massacres. Thousands of American troops remained on Iraqi soil as the uprising was crushed. In many cases, American soldiers were close enough to see the violence unfold. As Ahmed Chalabi, the exiled Iraqi opposition leader, later testified: "While thousands of U.S. troops were still on Iraqi soil and in some cases were close enough to watch, the tyrant unleashed the power of modern weaponry against men, women and children."[1]
Peter Galbraith, then a senior advisor to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who traveled through northern Iraq during the uprising, was unequivocal: "American troops in Iraq could have intervened and stopped the Republican Guards." General Wesley Clark reflected in 2011 that "we had provoked and then we kept our troops on the sidelines and didn't intervene."[3]
The United States possessed overwhelming military superiority in the region. Coalition forces had just demonstrated their capacity to devastate Iraqi military units in Operation Desert Storm. American airpower controlled Iraqi skies. Ground forces were positioned throughout southern Iraq and Kuwait. The capacity to intervene was never in question—only the political will.
The Pentagon's Calculated Pessimism
Rather than mobilizing to protect civilians responding to their president's call, American military and political officials issued statements designed to lower expectations and distance the United States from the rebels. On March 5, 1991, Rear Admiral John Michael McConnell, Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that "chaotic and spontaneous" uprisings were underway in 13 Iraqi cities, but stated the Pentagon's view that Saddam would prevail because of the rebels' "lack of organization and leadership."[1]
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was even more callous. As the uprisings began, he stated: "I'm not sure whose side you'd want to be on." This extraordinary comment from the American defense secretary revealed the administration's fundamental indifference to the fate of Iraqis who had responded to their president's call.[1]
On April 2, 1991, as loyalist forces were completing their suppression of the uprising, State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler issued a carefully crafted statement: "We never, ever, stated as either a military or a political goal of the coalition or the international community the removal of Saddam Hussein." This was technically true but profoundly dishonest. While regime change may not have been an official "goal," Bush had explicitly and repeatedly called for the Iraqi people to remove Saddam from power. The distinction was legalistic and meaningless to the tens of thousands dying in Iraqi cities.[1]
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was even more callous. As the uprisings began, he stated: "I'm not sure whose side you'd want to be on." This extraordinary comment from the American defense secretary revealed the administration's fundamental indifference to the fate of Iraqis who had responded to their president's call.[1]
On April 2, 1991, as loyalist forces were completing their suppression of the uprising, State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler issued a carefully crafted statement: "We never, ever, stated as either a military or a political goal of the coalition or the international community the removal of Saddam Hussein." This was technically true but profoundly dishonest. While regime change may not have been an official "goal," Bush had explicitly and repeatedly called for the Iraqi people to remove Saddam from power. The distinction was legalistic and meaningless to the tens of thousands dying in Iraqi cities.[1]
The Realist Justification: Geopolitics Over Human Life
The Bush administration's rationale for inaction reflected a "realist" foreign policy framework that prioritized strategic stability over human rights. Secretary of State James Baker feared the "Lebanonization of Iraq"—a scenario where the country would fragment into sectarian statelets. His nightmare scenario involved Iraqi Shia, aligned with Iran's fundamentalist Shia government, carving out the south; Sunni Muslims holding the center; and Kurds capturing the north, potentially inspiring Turkey's Kurdish population to revolt.[16][4][1]
Colin Powell, eager to bring American troops home, wanted to avoid entanglement in what might become a "messy civil war." National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and other senior officials shared these concerns. In their 1998 co-authored memoir A World Transformed, Bush and Scowcroft explained their thinking: "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."[17][4]
Yet this reasoning was fundamentally flawed. First, it assumed that maintaining Saddam Hussein in power would produce greater stability than supporting a democratic transition—an assumption decisively refuted by the subsequent 12 years of brutal repression, the 2003 invasion, and the catastrophic occupation that followed. Second, it ignored the moral obligation created by Bush's public calls for uprising. Third, it revealed a cynical willingness to sacrifice Iraqi lives for perceived American strategic interests.
The Death Toll: Quantifying the Catastrophe
Establishing precise casualty figures for the 1991 uprising remains challenging due to the Ba'athist regime's systematic efforts to conceal evidence and the chaotic nature of the violence. However, multiple authoritative sources provide convergent estimates that reveal the massive scale of killing.
Human Rights Watch and UN Estimates: Research published in medical and humanitarian journals indicates that 20,000-35,000 Iraqi civilians died in the uprisings and other postwar violence. The UN itself referenced these figures in 1991 reports.[18]
Regional Breakdowns:
· Shia South: Estimates range from 30,000 to 60,000 killed during the suppression of the southern uprising.[19][20]
· Kurdish North: Approximately 20,000 Kurds were killed.[19]
· Overall Estimates: The total death toll from the uprising and its suppression ranges from 50,000 to 100,000 people.[2][9]
Mass Graves: As of the research date, forensic teams had recovered 3,115 bodies from mass graves specifically linked to the 1991 Iraqi uprising. However, hundreds of mass grave sites remain unexplored. One mass grave discovered in Anbar province in 2011 contained over 800 bodies—men, women, and children shot in the head—from the Saddam era. A 2003 discovery near Mahaweel, south of Baghdad, revealed more than 3,000 bodies.[21][22]
These figures represent only identified remains. The actual death toll is certainly higher, as many victims were never recovered, were buried in unmarked individual graves, or were disposed of in ways that prevented later identification.
Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity: Legal Analysis
Defining Genocide: The Convention Framework
The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." These acts include:
1. Killing members of the group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
3. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Iraq ratified the Genocide Convention on January 20, 1959, creating binding legal obligations. The United States did not ratify the Convention until 1988—40 years after its adoption and only three years before the uprising.[23][24]
Applying the Genocide Framework to the 1991 Suppression
While the 1991 uprising suppression has not been formally adjudicated as genocide by an international tribunal, several elements suggest it meets or approaches genocidal criteria:
Targeting of Protected Groups: The violence specifically targeted Shia Arabs in southern Iraq and Kurds in northern Iraq based on their ethnic and religious identities. The slogan painted on Iraqi tanks—"No Shiites after today"—explicitly announced eliminationist intent. The systematic destruction of the Shia religious and cultural infrastructure in Najaf and Karbala, including damage to the shrine of Imam Ali, demonstrates targeting based on religious identity.[8]
Intent to Destroy "In Part": The Genocide Convention does not require intent to destroy an entire group globally, only "in part." The systematic targeting of Shia populations in specific cities, the mass executions of battle-age males, and the terrorization of entire communities meet this threshold. Human Rights Watch's analysis of the 1988 Anfal campaign against Kurds—which occurred just three years before the 1991 uprising—concluded that similar patterns of violence constituted genocide.[25][26][27]
Systematic Nature: The suppression was not spontaneous violence but a coordinated campaign directed by Iraq's central government. The Republican Guard's elite divisions, Iraq's internal intelligence agency (Mukhabarat), and Saddam's paramilitary Fedayeen forces all participated in a unified operation. Ali Hassan al-Majid—known as "Chemical Ali" for his use of chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians—personally supervised aspects of the crackdown and later admitted to killing over 100,000 people in various campaigns.[10][28][11]
Methods Employed: The tactics used—mass executions of civilians, sexual violence as a weapon of terror, desecration of religious sites, use of human shields, public display of corpses—were designed to terrorize and destroy communities, not merely to suppress military resistance. These methods align with patterns recognized as genocidal in other contexts.
Crimes Against Humanity: A More Certain Classification
Even if the 1991 suppression does not meet every element of the legal definition of genocide, it unquestionably constitutes crimes against humanity under international law. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as specific acts "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack."
The acts enumerated include:
· Murder
· Extermination
· Torture
· Rape and sexual violence
· Persecution against identifiable groups
· Enforced disappearance
· Other inhumane acts causing great suffering
Every one of these acts was systematically perpetrated during the 1991 suppression. The European Union's 2002 resolution condemned Iraq for "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law" and specifically noted "the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances."[9]
American Culpability: The Case for Complicity
Legal Frameworks of State Responsibility
Article III of the Genocide Convention establishes that not only genocide itself, but also "conspiracy to commit genocide," "direct and public incitement to commit genocide," "attempt to commit genocide," and "complicity in genocide" are punishable acts. The International Court of Justice's 2007 ruling in Bosnia v. Serbia established critical precedents for state complicity in genocide.[29][30]
The ICJ Standard for Complicity: According to the ICJ, a state is responsible for complicity if "its organs were aware that genocide was about to be committed or was under way, and if the aid and assistance supplied, from the moment they became so aware onwards, to the perpetrators of the criminal acts… enabled or facilitated the commission of the acts." The obligation to refrain from being complicit begins the moment a state becomes aware of a serious risk that genocide may be committed.[31][32]
Knowledge and Awareness: The Bush administration possessed comprehensive intelligence about the uprising and its suppression. American forces were present throughout Iraq and Kuwait. The Pentagon acknowledged uprisings in 13 cities on March 5. American pilots flying over southern Iraq witnessed the Republican Guard massacring Shia civilians on the ground. Refugees reaching American-controlled areas provided detailed testimony about atrocities. The administration cannot credibly claim ignorance.[4][8][1]
Acts of Assistance: The Schwarzkopf helicopter agreement directly enabled Iraqi forces to conduct aerial attacks against defenseless rebels and civilians. This constitutes material assistance that substantially facilitated the commission of mass atrocities. Moreover, the presence of American forces deterred potential international intervention while simultaneously signaling to Saddam that the United States would not interfere with his suppression campaign.[13][12][1]
The Moral Dimension: Promise and Betrayal
Beyond legal frameworks, the United States bears profound moral responsibility rooted in the act of incitement itself. When a powerful state publicly calls upon a vulnerable population to rise against a brutal dictator, it creates reasonable expectations of support. The Iraqi people who responded to Bush's call did so based on a rational calculation that American backing would materialize.
The Ethics of Encouragement: Moral philosophy recognizes special obligations created through the act of soliciting action from others. When Person A explicitly encourages Person B to take a dangerous action, Person A assumes responsibility for the foreseeable consequences, particularly if Person A fails to provide promised or reasonably expected support. This principle applies with even greater force when the soliciting party is a powerful nation-state and the respondent is an oppressed civilian population.
Just War Theory and Intervention Obligations: Classical just war theory, articulated by thinkers from Thomas Aquinas to Hugo Grotius, recognizes that governments committing atrocities against their subjects create legitimate grounds for external intervention. Grotius explicitly acknowledged that a government's subjects suffering atrocities permits others to "take up arms for them." When the United States publicly called for uprising, it implicitly invoked this humanitarian justification—then betrayed it through inaction.[33][34]
The Responsibility to Protect: While the formal "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine was not articulated until 2001, the underlying moral principle existed in 1991. When a state manifestly fails to protect its population from mass atrocities—or actively perpetrates such atrocities—the international community bears a responsibility to respond. The United States, having encouraged the uprising and possessing both proximity and capability, bore a heightened responsibility that it failed to fulfill.[35][33]
Comparative Case Studies: Patterns of International Failure
Rwanda 1994: The Paradigm of Non-Intervention
The Rwandan genocide provides the starkest comparison to the 1991 Iraqi uprising. Between April and July 1994, approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were systematically murdered in just 100 days. The international community's failure to intervene has been widely recognized as one of the great moral catastrophes of the 20th century.[36][37]
Warning and Inaction: UN peacekeeping forces were present in Rwanda and reported the escalating violence. Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire, commander of the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), pleaded for reinforcements and authorization to intervene. Instead, the UN Security Council reduced the peacekeeping force from 2,500 to 270 troops as the genocide accelerated. The parallels to the 1991 Iraqi uprising are haunting: in both cases, external forces were present, aware of mass atrocities, and capable of intervention—yet chose inaction.[38]
Acknowledgment of Failure: In April 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan publicly acknowledged the United Nations' responsibility for the Rwandan genocide and introduced an Action Plan to prevent future genocides. This admission of culpability stands in stark contrast to the Bush administration's continued defense of its 1991 Iraq policy. President George H.W. Bush "has never regretted his decision not to intervene," according to a 2003 analysis.[36][4]
Legal Accountability: The establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in November 1994—barely four months after the genocide—represented a commitment to accountability. It was the first international jurisdiction to prosecute and condemn genocide suspects, "giving life to the Genocide Convention for the first time since the treaty was adopted." No comparable accountability mechanism addressed the 1991 Iraqi atrocities.[39][36]
Srebrenica 1995: UN Failure Under a "Safe Area" Mandate
The July 1995 massacre at Srebrenica offers another instructive parallel. Bosnian Serb forces, commanded by General Ratko Mladić, systematically executed more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in an area that the United Nations had designated as a "safe area" under the protection of Dutch peacekeepers.[40][41]
The Betrayal of Protection: The UN peacekeeping force (UNPROFOR) was stationed within the Srebrenica enclave specifically to protect civilians. When Bosnian Serb forces attacked, UN peacekeeping officials proved "unwilling to heed requests for support from their own forces," allowing the Serb forces to "easily overrun" the enclave and carry out mass executions "without interference from UN soldiers." This mirrors the American forces' passivity during the 1991 Iraqi uprising.[41][42]
Suppression of Evidence: Investigations revealed that UN forces and the Dutch Defense Ministry destroyed or "mislaid" crucial evidence of the massacre, including a video tape showing Bosnian Serb soldiers engaged in extrajudicial executions as Dutch UN troops watched. The parallel to American military officials' downplaying of the Iraqi uprising's significance is evident.[41][1]
Institutional Responsibility: Twenty-five years after the Srebrenica genocide, the Dutch government still refused to issue a formal apology for its role in enabling the massacre. Similarly, the Bush administration never acknowledged culpability for the 1991 Iraqi catastrophe, instead offering legalistic distinctions about not having "officially" sought regime change.[40][1]
The Anfal Campaign 1988: Genocide Against Iraqi Kurds
The 1988 Anfal campaign against Iraqi Kurds provides the most directly relevant comparison, as it was perpetrated by the same regime, using similar methods, just three years before the 1991 uprising. The campaign killed between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds through chemical weapons attacks, mass executions, and systematic destruction of Kurdish villages.[26][27][25]
Human Rights Watch's Genocide Determination: The Anfal campaign marked the first time Human Rights Watch formally pronounced a judgment of genocide. The organization's extensive report, based on captured Iraqi government documents and survivor testimony, demonstrated "a deliberate intent on the part of the government of President Saddam Hussein to destroy, through mass murder, part of Iraq's Kurdish minority."[43][26]
Chemical Weapons and Halabja: The March 1988 chemical weapons attack on Halabja killed at least 5,000 Kurdish civilians, mostly women and children. This use of banned weapons against noncombatants constituted war crimes that compounded the broader genocidal campaign. Some reports suggested chemical weapons may also have been used during the 1991 uprising suppression.[11][25][26]
Ali Hassan al-Majid's Role: "Chemical Ali," who orchestrated the Anfal genocide, also played a central role in suppressing the 1991 uprising. During negotiations with Kurdish leaders in May 1991, he reportedly exclaimed in reference to Anfal victims: "It couldn't have been more than 100,000!" His cavalier admission of mass killing reveals the mindset of the Iraqi leadership.[44][28][10][11]
American Response to Anfal: The Reagan administration's response to the Anfal genocide foreshadowed the Bush administration's 1991 abandonment. Despite Senate efforts to impose comprehensive sanctions on Iraq, the Reagan administration opposed even weak sanctions, even while agreeing that Saddam had used poison gas on Kurds. Peter Galbraith, then working for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, helped expose the Anfal atrocities and secure the passage of the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988—which the executive branch largely ignored.[45][46]
The Aftermath: Operation Provide Comfort and Selective Protection
The Kurdish Safe Haven: Too Little, Too Late
The international outcry over Kurdish refugees fleeing to Turkey and Iran finally prompted a limited American response in April 1991. Operation Provide Comfort established a no-fly zone above the 36th parallel in northern Iraq and deployed ground forces to create a safe haven for Kurdish civilians. This operation, initially spearheaded by British Prime Minister John Major, represented a significant humanitarian intervention that saved thousands of Kurdish lives.[47][48][49]
Yet the selective nature of this protection reveals the cynicism underlying American policy. While the United States established a Kurdish safe haven in the north, it provided no comparable protection for Shia civilians in the south. The southern no-fly zone (Operation Southern Watch) was not established until later and never included a ground component. This geographic selectivity reflected geopolitical calculations rather than humanitarian principles—Kurdish areas bordered NATO ally Turkey, while Shia areas bordered Iran.[50]
The Michigan Iraqi American Community: Living Memory of Betrayal
The Iraqi diaspora in Michigan, one of the largest Iraqi American communities in the United States, has kept alive the memory of the 1991 uprising and American betrayal. A 2023 thesis by Zainab Alhussainy, based on extensive oral histories collected from survivors in Michigan, documents the lasting trauma:
"The aftermath of Saddam's retaliatory assault resulted in an estimated 30,000 to 60,000 civilian casualties in the South. The survivors of this tumultuous event carry lasting scars—PTSD, depression, and anxiety—echoing the trauma they endured."[20]
These oral histories reveal that Iraqi Americans understand the 1991 uprising as a profound betrayal. One survivor quoted in the research described Bush's call for uprising followed by abandonment as an act that "facilitated the dictatorship's prolonged grasp for twelve more years, leading to grievous loss of innocent lives, human rights violations, and civilians confronting Saddam's brutal rule unaided."[20]
The sense of betrayal persisted decades later. A 2011 New York Times article reported: "The sense of betrayal felt by many Iraqis endures, explaining a paradox of this conflict: although the Shiites emerged as the primary beneficiaries from the war that dismantled decades of oppressive Sunni governance, their trust in the Americans has never fully materialized." The United States ambassador to Iraq had to formally apologize to Shiite leaders for American inaction during the 1991 uprising—a remarkable admission of culpability.[51]
The Doctrine of Complicity: International Law Perspectives
The ICJ Standard in Bosnia v. Serbia
The International Court of Justice's 2007 judgment in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) established critical precedents for state complicity in genocide. The ICJ ruled that Serbia bore responsibility not for committing genocide directly, but for failing to prevent the Srebrenica genocide and for failing to punish its perpetrators.[32]
Knowledge and Capability: The ICJ emphasized that the obligation to prevent genocide requires states to "employ all means reasonably available to them" once they become aware of a serious risk of genocide. Critically, the obligation is one of conduct, not result—states must act even if their intervention might not succeed. The United States in 1991 possessed overwhelming military capability and direct knowledge of the atrocities; its failure to act violated this prevention obligation.[31]
Aid and Assistance: The ICJ clarified that complicity requires that a state's actions "materially or substantially enables or facilitates the commission of the wrongful act" and are "done with full knowledge of the circumstances, including the imminent or actual occurrence of the wrongful act." The helicopter agreement meets both criteria: it materially enabled Iraqi forces to massacre civilians, and American officials were fully aware of the atrocities being committed.[52]
The Obligation to Prevent: R2P and Modern Norms
While the Responsibility to Protect doctrine was not formally articulated until 2001, its underlying principles were recognized in international humanitarian law in 1991. The ICISS report that established R2P explained:[35][33]
"When a government does not fulfill the basic principle of the modern state of providing protection to its citizens, the responsibility to protect has priority over the principle of non-interference."[35]
The Bush administration's encouragement of uprising created a heightened obligation under emerging R2P principles. By publicly calling for Iraqis to risk their lives against Saddam, the United States assumed a special relationship with those who responded. The failure to protect these populations after inciting their rebellion represents a gross violation of the nascent R2P framework.
The Realist Critique and Its Moral Bankruptcy
Powell, Scowcroft, and "Lebanonization"
The Bush administration's principal justification for non-intervention rested on "realist" foreign policy arguments advanced by Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and Richard Haass. These officials feared that supporting the uprising would lead to Iraq's fragmentation into sectarian zones—what Baker called the "Lebanonization of Iraq."[16][4][1]
This reasoning was fundamentally flawed on both moral and strategic grounds. Morally, it subordinated the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians to American geopolitical calculations. The implicit message was clear: Iraqi lives matter only insofar as they serve American strategic interests. Strategically, the policy preserved a brutal dictator whose continued rule would require constant American military pressure, impose devastating sanctions on Iraqi civilians, and ultimately necessitate the catastrophic 2003 invasion.
The Iran Containment Rationale
Colin Powell's 1996 admission that the "practical intention was to leave Baghdad enough power to survive as a threat to Iran" reveals the cynicism at the heart of realist policy. This meant preserving Saddam Hussein's capacity to threaten his neighbors and oppress his people—the very behaviors that had precipitated the Gulf War—solely to maintain a balance of power against Iran.[1]
The moral bankruptcy of this position becomes clear when considering its implications: American policymakers preferred a genocidal dictator in Baghdad to the risk of an Iranian-aligned Shia government. They valued stability—defined as a frozen balance of power favorable to American interests—over justice, human rights, and the lives of Iraqi civilians.
Richard Haass and "War of Choice"
Richard Haass, who served as a senior National Security Council official during the Gulf War, later reflected on the difference between "wars of necessity" and "wars of choice." In his view, the 1991 Gulf War was a war of necessity, while the 2003 Iraq War was a war of choice that proved disastrous. Yet this framework obscures a crucial question: was intervention to protect the 1991 uprising a moral necessity?[53]
Just war theory suggests that humanitarian intervention to prevent mass atrocities can constitute a just cause for the use of force. The United States already had forces in position, had encouraged the uprising, and possessed overwhelming military capability. Intervention would not have required a new war—merely extending the mission of forces already deployed. The choice not to intervene was exactly that: a choice to prioritize strategic considerations over human lives.[34][33]
Samantha Power and "A Problem from Hell"
The Pattern of American Failure
Samantha Power's Pulitzer Prize-winning book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (2002) examines the consistent pattern of American inaction in the face of genocide throughout the 20th century. Her central argument is that American policymakers have been "consistently reluctant to condemn mass atrocities as genocide or to take responsibility for leading an international military intervention."[54]
Power documents how, without significant pressure from the American public, policymakers avoid the term "genocide" altogether and instead "appeal to the priority of national interests or argue that a U.S. response would be futile and accelerate violence." The 1991 Iraqi uprising fits this pattern perfectly: the Bush administration studiously avoided characterizing the suppression as genocidal, emphasized the risks of intervention, and prioritized strategic stability over humanitarian concerns.[54]
Peter Galbraith's Documentation
Power's work draws significantly on Peter Galbraith's documentation of Iraqi atrocities against Kurds and his later efforts to expose the 1991 betrayal. During the uprising, Galbraith visited rebel-held northern Iraq and narrowly escaped capture as Saddam's forces retook the region. His accounts were "instrumental in recording and publicizing attacks on the Kurdish civilian population and contributed to the decision to create a Kurdish 'safe haven' in northern Iraq."[55][46]
Galbraith later reflected on the American abandonment: "It is a stretch to imagine that a routine speech given in Washington would have reached the Iraqi malcontents and motivated the subsequent actions of the Shiites and Kurds." Yet this argument is disingenuous—Bush's speech was broadcast via Voice of America specifically to reach Iraqi audiences, and was followed by CIA-funded radio broadcasts explicitly calling for uprising.[3][1]
The Pattern of American Failure
Samantha Power's Pulitzer Prize-winning book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (2002) examines the consistent pattern of American inaction in the face of genocide throughout the 20th century. Her central argument is that American policymakers have been "consistently reluctant to condemn mass atrocities as genocide or to take responsibility for leading an international military intervention."[54]
Power documents how, without significant pressure from the American public, policymakers avoid the term "genocide" altogether and instead "appeal to the priority of national interests or argue that a U.S. response would be futile and accelerate violence." The 1991 Iraqi uprising fits this pattern perfectly: the Bush administration studiously avoided characterizing the suppression as genocidal, emphasized the risks of intervention, and prioritized strategic stability over humanitarian concerns.[54]
Peter Galbraith's Documentation
Power's work draws significantly on Peter Galbraith's documentation of Iraqi atrocities against Kurds and his later efforts to expose the 1991 betrayal. During the uprising, Galbraith visited rebel-held northern Iraq and narrowly escaped capture as Saddam's forces retook the region. His accounts were "instrumental in recording and publicizing attacks on the Kurdish civilian population and contributed to the decision to create a Kurdish 'safe haven' in northern Iraq."[55][46]
Galbraith later reflected on the American abandonment: "It is a stretch to imagine that a routine speech given in Washington would have reached the Iraqi malcontents and motivated the subsequent actions of the Shiites and Kurds." Yet this argument is disingenuous—Bush's speech was broadcast via Voice of America specifically to reach Iraqi audiences, and was followed by CIA-funded radio broadcasts explicitly calling for uprising.[3][1]
Breaking the Cycle of Inaction
Power's analysis suggests that only sustained domestic political pressure can compel American leaders to prioritize genocide prevention over strategic calculations. Yet the 1991 Iraqi uprising occurred during a period of American triumphalism following the Gulf War victory, when public attention had moved on from Iraq. The absence of sustained media coverage of the massacres enabled the Bush administration to maintain its policy of non-intervention without significant political cost.
Legal Liability and Historical Accountability
International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq
Unlike Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, Iraq never established an independent international criminal tribunal to prosecute crimes committed during the 1991 uprising suppression. The Iraqi High Tribunal, established after the 2003 invasion, prosecuted Saddam Hussein and other Ba'athist officials for crimes including the Anfal campaign and the suppression of the 1991 uprising.[44][10]
Ali Hassan al-Majid ("Chemical Ali") and 14 other former Iraqi officials faced war crimes prosecution for actions committed in response to the 1991 Shia uprising, with prosecutors estimating tens of thousands killed and buried in mass graves. Al-Majid had already received multiple death sentences for his role in the Anfal genocide and other crimes. These prosecutions, while important, focused solely on Iraqi perpetrators and did not examine the role of external actors.[10][44]
American Impunity
No American officials have faced legal consequences for their roles in encouraging the uprising and then abandoning the rebels. The political and legal immunity enjoyed by Bush, Powell, Scowcroft, Baker, Cheney, and Schwarzkopf stands in stark contrast to the prosecution of Iraqi officials who perpetrated the massacres.
This asymmetry reveals a fundamental problem in international justice: powerful states can facilitate mass atrocities through acts of commission and omission without facing accountability. The International Criminal Court, established in 2002, theoretically has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and genocide, but the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute and actively opposes ICC jurisdiction over American nationals.
Historical Judgment
While legal accountability may prove elusive, historical judgment has been harsh. Multiple scholars, journalists, and human rights advocates have documented the American betrayal and its consequences. The Iraqi diaspora preserves these memories, ensuring that the 1991 uprising remains a cautionary tale about the unreliability of great power promises.
George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq was, in part, an attempt to address the unfinished business of his father's Gulf War. Many Iraqi exiles who supported the 2003 invasion explicitly referenced the 1991 betrayal as justification for renewed American intervention. Ahmed Chalabi, who played a controversial role in promoting the 2003 war, had been involved in failed CIA-backed coup attempts in the 1990s that reflected continuing fallout from the 1991 abandonment.[56][57]
While legal accountability may prove elusive, historical judgment has been harsh. Multiple scholars, journalists, and human rights advocates have documented the American betrayal and its consequences. The Iraqi diaspora preserves these memories, ensuring that the 1991 uprising remains a cautionary tale about the unreliability of great power promises.
George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq was, in part, an attempt to address the unfinished business of his father's Gulf War. Many Iraqi exiles who supported the 2003 invasion explicitly referenced the 1991 betrayal as justification for renewed American intervention. Ahmed Chalabi, who played a controversial role in promoting the 2003 war, had been involved in failed CIA-backed coup attempts in the 1990s that reflected continuing fallout from the 1991 abandonment.[56][57]
Conclusion: The Enduring Shame
The 1991 Iraqi uprising and its brutal suppression constitute one of the darkest chapters in American foreign policy. President George H.W. Bush's administration deliberately encouraged Iraqis to rebel against Saddam Hussein, creating reasonable expectations of American support, then stood aside as between 50,000 and 100,000 civilians were massacred. This was not merely a failure of humanitarian intervention—it was active complicity in mass atrocities through the acts of incitement, material assistance (the helicopter agreement), and calculated abandonment.
The legal case for American complicity rests on several foundations:
1. Incitement: Bush's public calls for uprising, broadcast via official channels into Iraq, directly encouraged the rebellion.
2. Material Assistance: The Schwarzkopf helicopter agreement materially enabled Iraqi forces to conduct aerial massacres of defenseless civilians.
3. Knowledge: American forces witnessed the atrocities, intelligence agencies monitored the violence, and refugees provided detailed testimony—the administration cannot claim ignorance.
4. Capability and Proximity: U.S. forces possessed overwhelming military superiority and were positioned throughout the region, making intervention feasible.
5. Failure to Prevent: The administration violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent mass atrocities when it became aware of the serious risk.
The moral case is even clearer. When a powerful state encourages a vulnerable population to risk their lives in rebellion, it assumes special obligations to those who respond. The Bush administration's cynical calculation—that maintaining Saddam as a counterweight to Iran served American interests better than supporting genuine democratic change—subordinated Iraqi lives to geopolitical convenience.
The comparative analysis of Rwanda, Srebrenica, and the Anfal campaign reveals a consistent pattern: international failures to prevent genocide typically involve some combination of warning signs ignored, military forces present but passive, legal obligations evaded through semantic distinctions, and strategic calculations prioritized over human life. The 1991 Iraqi uprising fits this pattern perfectly.
The survivors of the uprising, many now living in diaspora communities like Michigan, carry the physical and psychological scars of the violence and the betrayal. Their testimony preserves the memory of what happened and challenges official American narratives that minimize or deny culpability. As one survivor's account documented: "We were ready to work with the U.S. if it supported us fully." That support never came.[57]
Twenty years after the uprising, the American ambassador to Iraq felt compelled to apologize to Shiite leaders for the United States' inaction—a remarkable admission that American policy had been wrong. Yet this apology, like the recognition of culpability in Rwanda and Srebrenica, came too late for the tens of thousands who died and the hundreds of thousands who suffered.[51]
The 1991 Iraqi uprising should stand as a permanent warning about the consequences of great power cynicism and the moral bankruptcy of realist foreign policy untethered from humanitarian principles.
The 1991 Iraqi uprising and its brutal suppression constitute one of the darkest chapters in American foreign policy. President George H.W. Bush's administration deliberately encouraged Iraqis to rebel against Saddam Hussein, creating reasonable expectations of American support, then stood aside as between 50,000 and 100,000 civilians were massacred. This was not merely a failure of humanitarian intervention—it was active complicity in mass atrocities through the acts of incitement, material assistance (the helicopter agreement), and calculated abandonment.
The legal case for American complicity rests on several foundations:
1. Incitement: Bush's public calls for uprising, broadcast via official channels into Iraq, directly encouraged the rebellion.
2. Material Assistance: The Schwarzkopf helicopter agreement materially enabled Iraqi forces to conduct aerial massacres of defenseless civilians.
3. Knowledge: American forces witnessed the atrocities, intelligence agencies monitored the violence, and refugees provided detailed testimony—the administration cannot claim ignorance.
4. Capability and Proximity: U.S. forces possessed overwhelming military superiority and were positioned throughout the region, making intervention feasible.
5. Failure to Prevent: The administration violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent mass atrocities when it became aware of the serious risk.
The moral case is even clearer. When a powerful state encourages a vulnerable population to risk their lives in rebellion, it assumes special obligations to those who respond. The Bush administration's cynical calculation—that maintaining Saddam as a counterweight to Iran served American interests better than supporting genuine democratic change—subordinated Iraqi lives to geopolitical convenience.
The comparative analysis of Rwanda, Srebrenica, and the Anfal campaign reveals a consistent pattern: international failures to prevent genocide typically involve some combination of warning signs ignored, military forces present but passive, legal obligations evaded through semantic distinctions, and strategic calculations prioritized over human life. The 1991 Iraqi uprising fits this pattern perfectly.
The survivors of the uprising, many now living in diaspora communities like Michigan, carry the physical and psychological scars of the violence and the betrayal. Their testimony preserves the memory of what happened and challenges official American narratives that minimize or deny culpability. As one survivor's account documented: "We were ready to work with the U.S. if it supported us fully." That support never came.[57]
Twenty years after the uprising, the American ambassador to Iraq felt compelled to apologize to Shiite leaders for the United States' inaction—a remarkable admission that American policy had been wrong. Yet this apology, like the recognition of culpability in Rwanda and Srebrenica, came too late for the tens of thousands who died and the hundreds of thousands who suffered.[51]
The 1991 Iraqi uprising should stand as a permanent warning about the consequences of great power cynicism and the moral bankruptcy of realist foreign policy untethered from humanitarian principles.
When nations encourage others to sacrifice for freedom, they assume obligations that cannot be evaded through legalistic distinctions or strategic calculations.
The United States violated those obligations in 1991, and the Iraqi people paid the price in blood. That shame endures, undiminished by time or attempts at justification.
___________________________________________________________
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_Iraq_War
3. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=honorstheses
4. https://time.com/archive/6668522/did-the-u-s-betray-iraqis-in-1991/
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Basra_(1991)
6. https://adst.org/2015/09/an-opportunity-lost-the-1991-iraqi-uprising/
7. https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde140051991en.pdf
8. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/28/world/after-the-war-iraqi-refugees-tell-us-soldiers-of-brutal-repression-of-rebellion.html
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba'athist_Iraq
10. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11155798
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Republican_Guard
12. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/18/world/after-the-war-allies-tell-iraq-not-to-fly-planes.html
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Schwarzkopf_Jr.
14. https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-35967389
15. https://adst.org/2015/10/the-1991-iraq-war-a-messy-end/
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baker
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Scowcroft
18. https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/cia/documents/medact-Iraq-report-collateral-damage.pdf
19. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/cold-war/gulf-war/operation-desert-storm-aftermath
20. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/honorstheses/85/
21. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13094677
22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_Iraq
23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzxyFIbDWGU
24. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4
25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_campaign
26. https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/i/iraq/iraq.937/anfalfull.pdf
27. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm
28. https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/1988-anfal-campaign-iraqi-kurdistan.html
29. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2244&context=fac_artchop
30. https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ior530102001en.pdf
31. https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Obligations-of-Third-States-and-Corporations-to-Prevent-and-Punish-Genocide-in-Gaza-3.pdf
32. https://academic.oup.com/book/11769/chapter/160811150
33. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc-876-massingham.pdf
34. https://iep.utm.edu/hum-mili/
35. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/131298/responsibilidad.proteger.pdf
36. https://unipd-centrodirittiumani.it/en/topics/the-united-nations-and-the-rwandan-genocide
37. https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/pdf/bgjustice.pdf
38. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2123152
39. https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/rwanda-25-years-international-non-response-genocide
40. https://besacenter.org/srebrenica-genocide-un-netherlands/
41. https://www.hrw.org/report/1995/10/15/fall-srebrenica-and-failure-un-peacekeeping/bosnia-and-herzegovina
42. https://www.hrw.org/legacy/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html
43. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/996297
44. https://fpa.org/iraqi-commanders-face-war-crimes-for-91-uprising/
45. https://www.theotheriraq.com/bio_peter.html
46. https://fivebooks.com/book/problem-hell-america-and-age-genocide-by-samantha-power/
47. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort
48. https://sof.news/history/operation-provide-comfort-iraq-1991/
49. https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458953/1991-operation-provide-comfort-and-northern-watch/
50. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones_conflict
51. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/world/middleeast/iraqi-shiite-anger-at-united-states-remains-strong.html
52. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/special-rapporteur-report-gaza-genocide-a-collective-crime-20oct25/
53. https://www.cfr.org/book/war-necessity-war-choice
54. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Problem_from_Hell
55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Galbraith
56. https://warontherocks.com/2018/12/ahmad-chalabi-and-the-great-man-theory-of-history/
57. https://time.com/archive/6734116/a-legacy-of-blowbacks/
58. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/imperfect-allies-and-non-state-actors-lessons-from-the-1991-no-fly-zone-in-iraq/
59. https://eismena.com/en/article/how-genocide-shaped-the-iraqi-state-2023-07-13
60. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15027570410006453
61. https://www.cfr.org/blog/peter-galbraith-and-iraq
62. https://jamesbaker.thinkport.org/Documentary-Highlights/Peace-Maker.html
63. https://www.arabmediasociety.com/the-perfect-war-us-public-diplomacy-and-international-broadcasting-during-desert-shield-and-desert-storm-19901991/
64. https://www.hnn.us/blog/29297
65. https://archive.org/details/1VoiceOfFreeIraq17.940MHz6January19911427UTC
66. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_George_H._W._Bush_administration
67. https://www.scirp.org/html/4-1590451_53898.htm
68. https://everycasualty.org/conflict/iraq/
69. https://www.merip.org/1991/07/the-other-face-of-war/
70. https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde141342003en.pdf
71. http://isj.org.uk/iraq-the-rise-of-the-resistance/
72. https://www.britannica.com/video/Pres-George-HW-Congress-Bush-Iraq-Kuwait-1990/-209497
73. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
74. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ6qpFpIFkY
75. https://www.cfr.org/blog/remembering-iraqi-uprising-twenty-five-years-ago
76. https://seattleglobalist.com/2016/03/17/iraqi-americans-us-invasion-1991-uprising-anniversary/48877
77. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/august-8-1990-address-iraqs-invasion-kuwait
78. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/behind-the-doomed-iraqi-uprisings-1991-15425
79. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1775422/FULLTEXT01.pdf
80. https://www.historyplace.com/speeches/bush-war.htm
81. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraq/
82. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
83. https://ir.ide.go.jp/record/26585/files/DPS000100_014.pdf
84. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect4.html
85. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi–Kurdish_conflict
86. https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq501/events_uprising.html
87. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/09/text/20030920-4.html
88. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell
89. https://www.ms.now/the-last-word/colin-powell-iraq-war-never-debated-msna40265
90. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/remembering-colin-powell-and-a-pivotal-moment-before-the-gulf-war/
91. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Books/Browse-Books/iBooks-and-EPUBs/Task_Force_Normandy/
92. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/1/17/mass-grave-uncovered-in-iraq
93. https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/1phnqb8/in_vice_and_other_media_colin_powell_is_often/
94. https://www.reuters.com/article/economy/iraq-uncovers-mass-grave-from-1991-shiite-revolt-idUSRYA041671/
95. https://theweek.com/articles/472697/kofi-annans-memoir-did-colin-powell-doubt-wmd-claims
96. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-03-04-mn-79-story.html
97. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/remembering-brent-scowcroft-a-true-national-security-maverick/
98. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/moral-case-against-iraq-war/
99. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c511811gqr0o
100. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1793&context=lawreview
101. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/irans-involvement-iraq
102. https://repository.upenn.edu/bitstreams/34ddd052-36cf-401b-864b-a7acff0a9e77/download
103. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/regime-change-consensus/hope-not-a-policy/E73DB7FDEE84D74E34E839FA88734E63
104. https://theconversation.com/how-iraqs-relationship-with-iran-shifted-after-the-fall-of-saddam-hussein-129736
105. https://nointervention.com/archive/websites/Iraq_British_colonialism/www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/warindex.htm
106. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/d-iq/dv/03_kurdishgenocidesofanfalandhalabja_/03_kurdishgenocidesofanfalandhalabja_en.pdf
107. https://ideasforpeace.org/content/is-the-war-in-iraq-justified-under-international-law/
108. https://www.ejil.org/pdfs/13/1/456.pdf
109. https://www.ifimes.org/en/7979-genocide-and-the-international-crimesagainst-kurd-in-iraq-under-saddam-regime
110. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1909&context=gsp
111. https://utppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3138/gsi.13.1.01
112.https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d81e3a/pdf/
___________________________________________________________
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Iraqi_uprisings
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_Iraq_War
3. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=honorstheses
4. https://time.com/archive/6668522/did-the-u-s-betray-iraqis-in-1991/
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Basra_(1991)
6. https://adst.org/2015/09/an-opportunity-lost-the-1991-iraqi-uprising/
7. https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde140051991en.pdf
8. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/28/world/after-the-war-iraqi-refugees-tell-us-soldiers-of-brutal-repression-of-rebellion.html
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba'athist_Iraq
10. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11155798
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Republican_Guard
12. https://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/18/world/after-the-war-allies-tell-iraq-not-to-fly-planes.html
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Schwarzkopf_Jr.
14. https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-35967389
15. https://adst.org/2015/10/the-1991-iraq-war-a-messy-end/
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baker
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Scowcroft
18. https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/cia/documents/medact-Iraq-report-collateral-damage.pdf
19. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/cold-war/gulf-war/operation-desert-storm-aftermath
20. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/honorstheses/85/
21. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13094677
22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_graves_in_Iraq
23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzxyFIbDWGU
24. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-1&chapter=4
25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfal_campaign
26. https://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/i/iraq/iraq.937/anfalfull.pdf
27. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFALINT.htm
28. https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/1988-anfal-campaign-iraqi-kurdistan.html
29. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2244&context=fac_artchop
30. https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ior530102001en.pdf
31. https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Obligations-of-Third-States-and-Corporations-to-Prevent-and-Punish-Genocide-in-Gaza-3.pdf
32. https://academic.oup.com/book/11769/chapter/160811150
33. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc-876-massingham.pdf
34. https://iep.utm.edu/hum-mili/
35. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/131298/responsibilidad.proteger.pdf
36. https://unipd-centrodirittiumani.it/en/topics/the-united-nations-and-the-rwandan-genocide
37. https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/pdf/bgjustice.pdf
38. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2123152
39. https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/rwanda-25-years-international-non-response-genocide
40. https://besacenter.org/srebrenica-genocide-un-netherlands/
41. https://www.hrw.org/report/1995/10/15/fall-srebrenica-and-failure-un-peacekeeping/bosnia-and-herzegovina
42. https://www.hrw.org/legacy/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html
43. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/996297
44. https://fpa.org/iraqi-commanders-face-war-crimes-for-91-uprising/
45. https://www.theotheriraq.com/bio_peter.html
46. https://fivebooks.com/book/problem-hell-america-and-age-genocide-by-samantha-power/
47. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Provide_Comfort
48. https://sof.news/history/operation-provide-comfort-iraq-1991/
49. https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458953/1991-operation-provide-comfort-and-northern-watch/
50. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones_conflict
51. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/world/middleeast/iraqi-shiite-anger-at-united-states-remains-strong.html
52. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/special-rapporteur-report-gaza-genocide-a-collective-crime-20oct25/
53. https://www.cfr.org/book/war-necessity-war-choice
54. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Problem_from_Hell
55. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Galbraith
56. https://warontherocks.com/2018/12/ahmad-chalabi-and-the-great-man-theory-of-history/
57. https://time.com/archive/6734116/a-legacy-of-blowbacks/
58. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/imperfect-allies-and-non-state-actors-lessons-from-the-1991-no-fly-zone-in-iraq/
59. https://eismena.com/en/article/how-genocide-shaped-the-iraqi-state-2023-07-13
60. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15027570410006453
61. https://www.cfr.org/blog/peter-galbraith-and-iraq
62. https://jamesbaker.thinkport.org/Documentary-Highlights/Peace-Maker.html
63. https://www.arabmediasociety.com/the-perfect-war-us-public-diplomacy-and-international-broadcasting-during-desert-shield-and-desert-storm-19901991/
64. https://www.hnn.us/blog/29297
65. https://archive.org/details/1VoiceOfFreeIraq17.940MHz6January19911427UTC
66. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_George_H._W._Bush_administration
67. https://www.scirp.org/html/4-1590451_53898.htm
68. https://everycasualty.org/conflict/iraq/
69. https://www.merip.org/1991/07/the-other-face-of-war/
70. https://www.amnesty.org/es/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde141342003en.pdf
71. http://isj.org.uk/iraq-the-rise-of-the-resistance/
72. https://www.britannica.com/video/Pres-George-HW-Congress-Bush-Iraq-Kuwait-1990/-209497
73. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
74. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ6qpFpIFkY
75. https://www.cfr.org/blog/remembering-iraqi-uprising-twenty-five-years-ago
76. https://seattleglobalist.com/2016/03/17/iraqi-americans-us-invasion-1991-uprising-anniversary/48877
77. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/august-8-1990-address-iraqs-invasion-kuwait
78. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/behind-the-doomed-iraqi-uprisings-1991-15425
79. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1775422/FULLTEXT01.pdf
80. https://www.historyplace.com/speeches/bush-war.htm
81. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraq/
82. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
83. https://ir.ide.go.jp/record/26585/files/DPS000100_014.pdf
84. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect4.html
85. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi–Kurdish_conflict
86. https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq501/events_uprising.html
87. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/09/text/20030920-4.html
88. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell
89. https://www.ms.now/the-last-word/colin-powell-iraq-war-never-debated-msna40265
90. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/remembering-colin-powell-and-a-pivotal-moment-before-the-gulf-war/
91. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Books/Browse-Books/iBooks-and-EPUBs/Task_Force_Normandy/
92. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/1/17/mass-grave-uncovered-in-iraq
93. https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/comments/1phnqb8/in_vice_and_other_media_colin_powell_is_often/
94. https://www.reuters.com/article/economy/iraq-uncovers-mass-grave-from-1991-shiite-revolt-idUSRYA041671/
95. https://theweek.com/articles/472697/kofi-annans-memoir-did-colin-powell-doubt-wmd-claims
96. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-03-04-mn-79-story.html
97. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/remembering-brent-scowcroft-a-true-national-security-maverick/
98. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/moral-case-against-iraq-war/
99. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c511811gqr0o
100. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1793&context=lawreview
101. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/irans-involvement-iraq
102. https://repository.upenn.edu/bitstreams/34ddd052-36cf-401b-864b-a7acff0a9e77/download
103. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/regime-change-consensus/hope-not-a-policy/E73DB7FDEE84D74E34E839FA88734E63
104. https://theconversation.com/how-iraqs-relationship-with-iran-shifted-after-the-fall-of-saddam-hussein-129736
105. https://nointervention.com/archive/websites/Iraq_British_colonialism/www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/warindex.htm
106. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/d-iq/dv/03_kurdishgenocidesofanfalandhalabja_/03_kurdishgenocidesofanfalandhalabja_en.pdf
107. https://ideasforpeace.org/content/is-the-war-in-iraq-justified-under-international-law/
108. https://www.ejil.org/pdfs/13/1/456.pdf
109. https://www.ifimes.org/en/7979-genocide-and-the-international-crimesagainst-kurd-in-iraq-under-saddam-regime
110. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1909&context=gsp
111. https://utppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3138/gsi.13.1.01
112.https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d81e3a/pdf/
