The Operation Desert Storm and its Impacts on the Middle East - Essay Example

?The Operation Desert Storm and its Impacts on the Middle East The continuous trail of Gulf War is an explosive example of certain implications of some diplomatic realities that steered the politics of the Middle East during the end of the twentieth century. The entire term of the war along with the operative measures inclusive of all the technology applied in the process together was titled ‘Operation Desert Storm’ and the central figure placed as the dearest target was the leader of the mightier side. Studies have all been on for finding the real picture of the war and its motives. However, the best known result of the toughest war was seemingly a discovery of diplomatic interventions to spearhead the shuffling of the history and socio-economic definitions of the ‘oil-rich regions in the middle-east’ (Bacevich 2009, p. 106). This essay is presented with an aim to focus on the realities of the most dreadful war of the recent past and critically evaluate the political and socio-economic changes the war has thereupon imposed on the Middle East region. The storm of the rich deserts in the middle-eastern Asia started all when the Iraqi quest for expansive imperialism set surveillance over the well-filled Kuwait for its wealth and the capture of its sovereignty (Hunsberger & Finn 1997, p. 62). The seemingly tiny nation was all meant a rich resource for crude oil and natural gases, and as a result, it was not surprising that it turned out to be Iraq’s soft target by the end of 1980s (Carlson 1992). However, as references say, a war can break out between countries when one of them eyes on the other for economic, political or security concerns which generally aims at claiming the supremacy over the target nation (Karsh 1990). As such, the war of the desert was a demolitionist approach of a mightier country over a seemingly unarmed country for indirectly seizing the economic liberty of its own supporters that eventually led to the violent demonstration of power and the political unity of countries that feared equal threats as the US from Iraq (US History, n.d.). The details of the war though cannot be described in a few lines, the outbreak and the expanse of this strike was the revelation of unforeseen weapons and war tactics from all the parties involved in it. What all the history could mark eventually was the immediate ‘war-booting’ arrangements of political combinations and instantaneously changing diplomatic facets of the neighbors alongside the development of the war (Burr & Richelson 2001). In the best form of historic evaluation, it can be stated that it was a war that was centered on one man and the trials of the allies that tried to capture his kingdom - Iraq and its president Saddam Hussein. When one tries to see the Gulf War as a reflection of rivalry between two princely provinces, there ends the research for reasons or outcomes as the matter can be obviously related to egos (El-Najjar 2001). But the end of the Iraq-Kuwait war was literally the beginning of a political flu that ran its impacts through the nerves of all the parties that involved in the war. The oil-rich regions of the Middle East has always been the target of global business monitors for their abundance in resources that substantiate the growth with the demand for their products is a sure hot cake in the trade (Tetreault, n.d.). All the studies on the importance of the wealth of this region in the world politics and economy have one thing in common to refer – wars are for gains, not for losses to allies. In addition to oil, even the miniscule sample of regional and religious issues of this region was capable of attracting the economic giants of the West (Gitlin 2009, pp.17-18). The wars in general is seen by some authors as the failure of administrative system that aimed at things beyond the public welfare of the subjects where the caretakers became aimless opportunists who ran in pursuit of their regal charms by calling for the assumed security of foreign might that resultantly led to endless political instabilities resulted from the impacts of their sustained cold war (MacQueen 2013, p.74). Even when the prime focus is kept on the reasons behind the continuous wars in the desert soil, one thing is not clear as to who was the real beneficiary of the bloodshed across decades. There can still be questions whether these were all meant for cornering some countries in particular to loot the natural blessings they are holding inside the sand beds. The Middle East, since date unknown, has always been a region under the imperial regime and has therefore been a demography that relied on the religious principles that distanced the people from colonialism. However, the rise of a distinct thought of collaboration of regal ideologies with external political support eventually led to the identification of democracy in some of the provinces after the two world wars (Muhammad & Michaelle n.d.). With the emergence of powerful unities between leading economies in the world, the political equations among the countries resorted to flexibility within their own standardized administration norms. While looking into the scenarios that led to the political instabilities, the major factors that contributed such a political change by the end of the twentieth century appear to be capable of drawing attention. Some of the studies reveal that territorial disputes that led to the emergence of terrorists groups as well as the fear that led to the disturbances in the authoritarian governments in the Middle East provinces may have paved way for a continuous unrest that resulted from the arguments against the continued existence of regal rights over the universally accepted democratic styles of administration demonstrated successfully by the global economic powers (MacQueen 2013, p.161-172). While the theories of a gradual change in the political facade of the desert region is still alive, the intertwined combinations of religious strictness and political security have to been seen as lying in the core of every political equation that these countries wanted to follow even during emergencies. The war in total to be seen as a hugely invested drama that went for nobody’s favor. The strike by the US forces against the Iraq troop was a legendary display of lethal weapons in the air and on land. An amazingly strong Saddam Hussein’s presidency was not easily willing to withdraw from the frontline even as it lost billions of dollars and hundreds of human capital in the war. According to certain references, Iraqi forces were able to intercept the areal protection set by America and were successful at sending their SCUD missiles to ensure the destruction of enemy camps located in Saudi Arabia by accounting for a massive destruction across the neighborhood (Browning 2011). The initial developments of the war was in favor of Saddam but the war turned into a storm that was not to rest the desert country as expected by him. It was because of the enormous funding from the western powers that came in aide to the US’ favor. When the study goes exploring the scope and outcome of the Operation Desert Storm, it can be seen that this ride was one of the fiercest battles the US army had ever fought in history. The most significant feature of it was the deployment of forces and their successful chase of the Iraq forces from across the rich deserts of the oil-flooded provinces of the Arabian region and the resultant changes in the world politics during and after the negotiation processes that involved the participation of the leading economies of the world. It was by and large the greatest demonstration of battle-trouping power of the US and arguably the finest display of their sophisticated armory aided by emerging information technology. Considering the amount of money and the loss of property and lives, the Iraq – US led ally war should be considered as the Second Gulf War (Pandey 2011). Even though the war broke out as a result of the invasion of the Iraq forces on Kuwait in 1990 and their continued resentment against Kuwait for its trials to undermine the Iraqi economy by selling the oil at a low price in the international market. It was something beneficial for many countries to extend the term of the economic rivalry between the two countries for as many years as possible until Iraq eventually challenged the sovereignty of Kuwait. In what may be called a dramatic twist in the story, the authoritarian approach of Saddam Hussein towards the Arabian countries as a whole attracted wrath of the US which had already sensed a danger lying in the autocratic leadership style emerging in the Iraqi president. The immediate changes in the political framework of the Middle East were doubtlessly forced by the aggression of Saddam. A potentially stronger military force Iraq was then, it challenged the security of even the bigger nations in the UAE besides Lebanon and Egypt and almost all the Afro-Asian oil harvesters (Abdulkhaleq 1994). This insecurity has to be observed as the basic platform for a rather inevitable political restructuring of comparatively less competent countries that engaged in the international oil trade (Ibid). There are various revelations that come up with exploration of the operation desert storm, and the most supportive of the beliefs is that Iraq’s method of attacking the neighbor was its last hope to recover from the economic incapacity derived from the heavy war spending in the country’s strike on Iran. Iraq, on the other hand, was isolated among the Arabian countries for the inhuman acts by almost all the countries in the world. It was largely by the effective utilization of UN powers by a tactful US government to enter the scene at the right moment to capture the authorities to which they had aided Iraq before. A massive change in the economic and political conditions across the fighting countries as well as their innocent neighbors originated as soon as the liberation of Kuwait was assisted by the USA (the global cement report 2005, pp. 162-163). The most important demographic changes were the resettlement issues that rose across the borders of Kuwait that blocked the ways to the nationals of its neighboring countries who had set up their business or settled lives in various fields of employment. At the end of the war, the Kuwaiti government was not willing to allow the return of the runaways. According to some expert observations, soon after the successful deployment of the US army that devastated the Iraqi attack, the political insurgencies broke out among Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt besides the rival countries as a result of the interplay of religious politics that aided the trade and cooperation among these countries (Faour 1993, p.21-29). The most significant result of the war was a demographic shift of millions of people either temporarily or permanently from the countries they had positioned their lives, either for fear of life or for finding new means of living whereby resulting in a political redefinition of their original country. At the end of the war however, according to the tone of some researchers, Iraqi attack on Kuwait was the most untimely expedition because of Saddam’s inferior views towards the long term implications of the war and the reactions it would invite from the leader suppliers or dependents of oil resources in the developed world (Yetiv 1992, p.196). Even though the plans of America was aiding a defensively poor Kuwait, their continued presence in the administration of the country alarmed economic warnings in the neighboring countries, and by some time later, Saudi Arabia was set for appeasing pacts with Iraq for fear of a political insecurity that might derive from the dependence on economic powers. The obvious outcome of the operation was by all means the immediate evacuation of the foreign occupants, especially the Iraqi forces from Kuwait (Whittington 2011). However, the seeds of political reshuffling that America had sown landed the mighty Saudi Arabia particularly in a big trap. Studies highlight the fact that the country had eventually exposed its political weakness against all its religious and historical prestige by depending on the favor of the USA for the security of its wealth by hiring military aid (Abdulkhaleq 1994). Under this situation, the people of the country realized the need for a democratic government and developed organized demonstrations in protest of the royal regime. Moreover, the time of Iraqi ride on Kuwait has to be seen as the most favorable one for the US who made quick and easy entry to the scene and effortlessly acquired the natural resources of Kuwait with an aim to expand its oil hunt in the nearby regions. According to the views of Freedman (1993, p.215-218) as a result of the attack on Kuwait, the supreme gravity of the total effect was directed towards Saudi Arabia from the pressures of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) as well as from the security threats once the military support was withdrawn, and as a result the country’s political situation became flexible with the absence of powerful unity among fellow Arabian countries. Not only for the Saudi government, but for all the oil-wealthy countries in the Middle East, the intervention of any external power is a potential threat to their very existence. One of the most important outcomes was that the myth of ‘Arab Brothers’ got shattered and instead a ‘new world order’ emerged in the region (Lecture notes). Given the assumptions are true, there are chances of conflicts between countries when the actual military weaknesses are exposed. Hence it has become very necessary for such countries after the fall of Iraq in the war that would be exploited for the overdependence on external forces. While the effectiveness of the arguments that support the changes in the political and socio-economic remains stronger, an important proportion of observations are of the view that there has not been a distinct influence of the operation on the present economy of the Arabian region. This conflict of opinions can be related to the prevalence of a prominent system of administration that generally endorses the external affairs as well as the foreign policies of the Arabian countries in general. From a hawk’s eye view, it can be seen that the execution of the desert operation was more impacting on the economic conditions of the countries in the Middle East than on their political sphere directly. However, the intervention of an external political power with armed forces to aid the raids on an enemy would attract enormous support from countries presumably of less potential to lead a fight. There are many assumptions that correlate the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as a model inspired from their previous raid on Iran in what was called the first Gulf War. The term of the war was short indeed; however, the devastating effect planned by the US ally in this operation was equipped with more weapons and money than those were used in the earlier history of wars. Finally, a conclusion can be made that the external support hired by the Kuwaiti government was apparently successful in scaring their enemies away, but the implications of their foreign policy adversely affected the neighboring countries which eventually lost their monopoly in natural resources besides the emergence of uprising of democratic claims in most of the royal regimes in the Middle East in the later stages. References Abdulkhaleq, A. (1994) ‘Gulf War: the socio-political background’. Arab Studies Quarterly, June 22. [online] available at [accessed 30 April 2013]. Browning, W. (2011) ‘Operation Desert Storm Facts and Figures’. YahooNews, Jan 12. [online] available at [accessed 30 April 2013]. Bacevich, A. J. (2009) American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy. Harvard University Press. Burr, W & Richelson, J. T. (2001) Operation Desert Storm: Ten Years Later. National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 39. [online] available at [accessed 30 April 2013]. Carlson, C. C. (1992) ‘Operation Desert Storm: The Real Reason Behind It’. Orlando Sentinel, Jan 17. El-Najjar, H. A. (2001) The Gulf War: Overreaction & Excessiveness. [online] available at [accessed 30 April 2013]. Faour, M. (1993) The Arab world after Desert Storm. US Institute of Peace Press. Freedman, R. O. (1993) The Middle East after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. University Press of Florida. Gitlin, M. (2009) Operation Desert Storm. ABDO. The Global Cement Report. (2005) International Cement Review. Tradeship Publications Ltd. [online] Google Books. Hunsberger, W. S & Finn, R. B. (1997) Japan's Quest: The Search for International Role, Recognition and Respect. M.E. Sharpe. Karsh, E. (1990) ‘Geopolitical Determinism: The Origins of the Iran-Iraq War’. The Middle East Journal, 44 (2): 256-268. Muhammad, M & Michaelle, B. (n.d.) "Democracy." In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. Oxford Islamic Studies Online. Available at http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0185 [accessed 30 April 2013]. Pandey, K. (2011) Desert Storm Facts. [online] available at [accessed 30 April 2013]. Tetreault, M. A. (n.d.) The Political Economy of Middle Eastern Oil. US History. Operation Desert Storm. [online] available at [accessed 30 April 2013]. Whittington, M. The Impact of Operation Desert Storm. Yahoo News, Jan 12. [online] available at [accessed 30 April 2013]. Yetiv, A. A. (1992). ‘The Outcomes of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm: Some Antecedent Causes’. Political Science Quarterly. 107 (2): 195-212. [online] available at [accessed 30 April 2013]. Read More