The impact of war on the Iraqi people and across the world

Model answer

One group was former members of Saddam's regime, such as Ba'athists and soldiers of the disbanded Iraqi army. Another was al-Qaeda in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which included foreign jihadist fighters.

Model answer

Source A admits that US policy had been failing because Bush says that the situation in Iraq is 'unacceptable' both to Americans and to himself, and he accepts that 'mistakes have been made' and that the responsibility is his. This was an unusual admission from a President who had declared 'Mission Accomplished' in 2003. Announcing more than 20,000 extra troops and a new approach of protecting the population and securing Baghdad also implies that the previous strategy had not worked.

The context explains why he had to admit this. In 2006, after the bombing of the Shia shrine at Samarra, sectarian killings and death squads pushed Iraq towards civil war, and about 3,000 US troops had died by the end of the year. In November 2006 the Democrats won control of Congress, Rumsfeld resigned, and in December the Iraq Study Group described the situation as 'grave and deteriorating'. Bush was under enormous pressure, so the speech admitted failure while trying to win support for a new strategy.

Model answer

Source B is useful because it shows the enormous scale of the war's impact: about 2 million Iraqis had fled abroad and about 2 million more had been forced from their homes inside Iraq. It also links much of this to the sectarian violence after 2006, which fits my knowledge that the bombing of the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra in February 2006 led to a wave of killings and the 'cleansing' of mixed neighbourhoods in Baghdad. Its provenance gives it authority, as the UNHCR is the UN's refugee agency, with staff in the region and no reason to favour either side. However, refugees were very hard to count, so its figures were estimates, and because the agency was appealing for money it may have stressed the size of the crisis.

Source C is useful because it shows what the war meant for individual Iraqis. The doctor describes mass casualties from bombings, shortages of blood, water and electricity, and the killing, kidnapping and flight of his colleagues. His fear of checkpoints where 'men ask your name' shows how sectarian militias controlled Baghdad's streets in 2006. This fits my knowledge that doctors and other professionals were targeted and that thousands left Iraq, damaging its hospitals and schools. As an eyewitness account from someone working in a Baghdad hospital, it gives vivid first-hand detail. However, it is one person's experience in one hospital during the worst year of the violence, and a medical charity may have chosen a particularly dramatic account to raise awareness.

Overall, the sources are very useful together because they complement each other: Source B gives the scale of the crisis and Source C shows the human experience behind the figures. Both show the impact at its worst point, in 2006-2007. However, neither shows the positive effects of the war, such as freedom from Saddam's repression, the elections of 2005 or the relative safety of Kurdistan, or the improvement in security in 2008, so a historian would need other evidence to judge the impact over the whole period.

Model answer

Between 2004 and 2006 Iraq moved from rule by an occupying power to an elected government with a new constitution, which was a remarkable achievement in a country that had been a dictatorship for decades. However, I think the transfer was only a partial success, because the new political system divided Iraqis along sectarian lines and the new government could not keep order.

There were real successes. On 28 June 2004 the Coalition Provisional Authority handed sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government led by Ayad Allawi, as promised. On 30 January 2005 about 8.5 million Iraqis, roughly 58% of voters, took part in the first free national election for decades, despite insurgent threats, and the 'purple finger' became a symbol of hope. A Kurd, Jalal Talabani, became President, which would have been unthinkable under Saddam. In October 2005 a new constitution was approved by about 79% of voters, and in December 2005 turnout rose as Sunni Arabs took part, the Iraqi Accord Front winning 44 seats. In May 2006 Nouri al-Maliki formed a government based on an elected parliament, and Iraqis now had a free press and political parties.

However, the transfer had serious weaknesses. The interim government of 2004 was appointed rather than elected, and about 140,000 US troops remained in control of security, so many Iraqis felt real power had not changed hands. Most Sunni Arabs boycotted the January 2005 election, so they had little say in writing the constitution, which they largely rejected; two Sunni provinces voted against it by more than two-thirds. Iraqis voted mainly according to their religious or ethnic group, so politics became a contest between Shia, Kurdish and Sunni parties. After the December election it took months to form a government.

Most importantly, the new government could not provide security. Militias infiltrated ministries such as the Interior Ministry, and death squads operated within some police units. Violence rose throughout the period, and after the Samarra bombing in February 2006 Iraq slid into sectarian civil war, just as the new government was being formed. Electricity and other services remained poor, which undermined trust in the new system.

Overall, I only partly agree. The transfer succeeded in creating democratic institutions: elections, a constitution and an elected government. But it did not create a government that all Iraqis accepted or that could protect them, and by 2006 the country was more violent than ever. In form it was a success, but in substance it was largely a failure.