The Strategic Causes of Conflict: What Caused the 1991 Gulf War - Essay Example

? The Strategic Causes of Conflict - What caused the 1991 Gulf War Introduction One of the most important challenges that international communityhas to face is the development by countries worldwide of weapons that can severe threaten security at international level. Chemical and nuclear weapons belong in this category. The acquisition and the development of such weapons is clearly forbidden by international law with only exceptions and under the terms that the relevant processes will be quite clear and approved by relevant international bodies. Up today, the access of a country to chemical and nuclear weapons has caused severe oppositions and conflicts. There are those who support that all countries would have such right while others claim that only certain countries should be authorized to obtain such weapons. Current paper focuses on the identification and the analysis of the reasons that have led to the development of the 1991 Gulf war. The specific war, which was developed by US against Iraq seemed to be related to the latter’s efforts to develop chemical and nuclear weapons. However, other views have also appeared. For example, it has been noted that Iraq paid a high price for its efforts to become the region’s leader, a plan that would threaten the interests of other region’s countries, especially of Kuwait. There is also the view that the practice of Iraq to ignore the guidelines of international community in regard to the trade of the oil could not be tolerated. The views that have been developed in regard to the causes of the 1991 Gulf war are analytically presented below using relevant literature. It is proved that the specific war was rather unavoidable since its causes were many and their elimination was not feasible, as explained below. In any case, the 1991 Gulf war revealed a series of problems and revealed the ineffectiveness of international community to resolve critical disputes by avoiding the use of military forces. 2. Gulf War of 1991 – Causes 2.1 1991 Gulf War – a brief overview of critical events In order to identify the causes of the 1991 Gulf war it is necessary to refer to a series of events that took place before the development of the war. In August of 1990 Iraqi troops entered in Kuwait; the specific initiative surprised international community and led to the immediate reaction of USA and UN.1 UN ‘warned Iraq to withdraw’.2 Severe sanctions were introduced, as a threat, so that Iraqi government is persuaded to change its plans and to withdraw its troops from Kuwait; the sanctions were mostly economic while air force was involved for securing the inability of Iraq to seek for support by other countries.3 In addition, US troops were sent to the Gulf so that to secure that there would be no risk for the development of the crisis to the other countries of the region.4 Shortly, the US government developed a coalition, at international level, for deciding on the measures that should be taken against Iraq: Egypt and Saudi Arabia were among the Arab states that stated their willing to participate in such coalition since their security seemed to be threatened by Iraq.5 In addition, the Security Council of UN was asked to give its authorization for the use of military forces, an initiative that was developed in November 1990 and since Iraqi government refused to withdraw its troops from Kuwait.6 The Security Council set a deadline for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait: it was the 15th of January 1991; after that date the international community would have the right to use ‘any means for securing the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait’.7 In 16th January and since no response existed from Iraqi government President Bush ordered the beginning of ‘aerial bombardment’.8 These bombardments were continued for about 5 weeks with no success since Iraqi troops refused to leave Kuwait; a ground military operation was ordered, an initiative that finally led to the release of Kuwait from the Iraqi troops.9 The ground operation was terminated in February the 27th with full success.10 At this point, reference should be made to the following fact: according to its initial plan, the 1991 Gulf War would have limited losses since it would be primarily developed through aerial military forces.11 However, finally ground military operations were not avoided; the US losses from these operations have been estimated to 10,000, including those died shortly after their return to US after their exposal to chemical weapons.12 This means that the effectiveness of the military operations developed against Iraq can be doubted; in the specific project the inability of military leaders in US and UN to estimate the costs in regard to human losses was made clear,13 a fact that led to strong oppositions between US politicians who have provided their approval for the involvement of US in the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.14 Under these terms, the following question appears: was the 1991 Gulf war unavoidable? This question can be answered only after reviewing the causes of the specific war as identified by researchers and analysts who had studied the various aspects of the 1991 Gulf war. Two potential causes of the 1991 Gulf War are presented below: political and economic interests related to third countries, meaning countries in the Gulf region but also others that also have interests in the region and the US foreign policy. These two causes/ factors are explored through relevant literature. The invasion of Iran in Kuwait is analyzed, as a factor, through the comments made on the above two causes; this practice has been used because of the following fact: the specific initiative of Iraq seems to be rather a justification for the development of the 1991 Gulf war. Such conclusion can be developed through the literature published in regard to the 1991 Gulf war and which emphasizes on the existence of specific reasons for the beginning of the 1991 Gulf war; these reasons can be categorized as follows: political/ economic interests from the termination of Hussein’s regime and US foreign policy, as analytically explained below. 2.2 Causes of 1991 Gulf War 2.2.1 Local political/ economic interests One of the most critical characteristics of the 1991 Gulf war is its close relationship with local political and economic interests. The high involvement of politics in the development of the 1991 Gulf war is analyzed in the study of Finlan.15 According to the specific study, the 1991 can be considered as the result of the full change of Hussein’s image, as a leader, worldwide. In the past, i.e. several years before the war, Hussein was presented in the international community as a leader who supports the efforts of US to control the expansion of Islamic groups that used extremism to promote their ideas. For this reason, Hussein was rather popular and his strategic choices were highly appreciated by the international community.16 However, the development of the war against Iran, in 1980, led to the gradual change of this image of Hussein. Instead of being an ideal leader and a supporter of the interests of the international community, Hussein became a brutal leader who had no concerns for using violence if his regime was threatened. As Finlan notes, this change in his image ‘surprised even Hussein’;17 Hussein could not even imagine that his close relationship with US government would be destroyed.18 The case of Hussein can be used as an example of the lack of expected outcomes when referring to international politics; allies can be changed and new coalitions can be developed in quite short period of time depending on the need for covering securing political and economic benefits.19 The political aspects of the 1991 are revealed through the following fact: in December 1990 President Bush gave an interview to US News and World Report’.20 It that interview President Bush noted that the fight of US against Iraq should be considered as ‘the fight of good against evil’.21 In another interview, also given in December 1990, President Bush explained that he had to proceed to any necessary measure in order ‘to stand firm against Saddam Hussein’.22 These statements were made probably for calming the strong oppositions of US politicians and population towards a potential involvement of US in the Iraq-Kuwait crisis.23 The above statements help to understand that the 1991 Gulf War was closely related to politics: the termination of Hussein’s regime seemed to be the key reason for the beginning of the war; the invasion of Kuwait was used as the justification for developing this war. In the study of Munro reference is made to the following aspect of the 1991 Gulf war: the war was presented to the public as the only means for terminating the regime of Hussein and for establishing democracy in Iraq. However, there was no plan how such political transition could be achieved in Iraq, especially since the country’s political and social environment was quite unstable.24 The use of the political needs of Iraq, to become a democracy, as one of the reasons for developing the war against Iraq has been strongly criticized mostly because of the following fact: for decades the regime of Hussein had served effectively the needs of the international community.25 When the opposition of the regime to the interests of the international community was discovered? In addition, for quite a long time the cooperation between the Iraqi government and the governments of other countries in the Gulf region has been quite effective.26 It is implied that specific political and economic interests appeared that could not tolerate the continuation of Hussein’s regime; these interests could not be promoted unless the power of Hussein was limited or, even, eliminated.27 The role of specific political and economic interests in the 1991 Gulf war is highlighted in the study of Taylor.28 According to the above researcher the media coverage of the 1991 Gulf war was such that the existence of specific interests could be made clear. Because of the inaccuracies in the information provided through the media in regard to the 1991 Gulf war accusations for war propaganda have appeared.29 This practice, i.e. the propaganda for the Gulf war, was related to political and economic interests that could highly affect the US Foreign Policy.30 2.2.2 US foreign policy The decision of US to invade in Iraq was rather risky, taking into consideration the strong oppositions, developed both within US and abroad, in regard to such plan. On the other hand, President Bush referred to the following case: it was possible for Iraqi troops to be further developed in the region, invading in Saudi Arabia, i.e. to use Kuwait as a path for entering other countries.31 Such effort would lead to severe turbulences in the region; it was mentioned that the immediate response of US to Iraq’s invasion in Kuwait was the only way for preventing military conflicts that could have non-controllable effects, especially if countries with chemical/ nuclear weapons were also involved in the conflict.32 If the involvement of USA in the 1991 Gulf War is justified using the above arguments, then the invasion of USA to Iraq was an initiative for protecting peace and security both globally and locally. The review of the US practices in regard to other conflicts, of different characteristics, between countries worldwide prove that the specific justification is not fully verified, especially because of the following fact: no effort seemed to made by international community in advance for resolving the crisis peacefully; rather, sanctions were used as a first measure for resolving the crisis and soon the invasion in Iraq was approved by international community, even if the consequences of this decision on Iraqi population could be extremely severe.33 On the other hand, the US foreign policy had often been accused for promoting military conflicts without taking into consideration the risks involved, especially in terms of losses. Reference can be made, as an example, to the case of Afghanistan. The long term presence of US troops in the country has been often criticized as of its necessity. Other military interventions, such as that in former Yugoslavia, have been also criticized as of their outcomes on the countries involved; in the case of former Yugoslavia the high number of human losses of non-militants and the damages caused on the country’s infrastructure the justifications given for the involvement of US in the crisis developed locally have been doubted. In general, US tend to support the use of military force in the resolution of crisis developed internationally; this practice characterizes US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. For many theorists, this practice of US can be justified if taking into consideration their role in the termination of the World War II, where the use of military forces for preventing the expansion of Germany was unavoidable.34 However, after the end of World War II the policies of governments worldwide have been differentiated: emphasis is given on the use of negotiations as a tool for resolving disputes between states. The use of military forces is considered as the last means for resolving disputes and it is used only when all efforts for the end of a crisis peacefully have been failed. The war between Britain and Argentina for Falklands islands, in 1982, proved that the use of military forces for resolving disputes is always an option, when negotiations have failed. Still, in the above war no other option seemed to exist for terminating the dispute between Britain and Argentina for the specific piece of land.35 The above case can be used as an example for evaluating the relationship between US foreign policy and the 1991 Gulf War. In the literature, different views have been developed in regard to the role of US in the termination of crisis between Iraq and Kuwait. For certain researchers, US tried to stop the increase of power of Hussein, as a strong leader in the Gulf region.36 The war between Iran and Iraq in 1980 that was decided by Hussein is also considered as one of the key reasons for the 1991 Gulf War.37 As explained above, in section 2.2.1, the consequences of the above war on Iran’s economy were severe. Moreover, it was quite possible that similar plans would be developed against other countries of the region, such as Egypt and Arab States. The US government had to respond to the demand of its allies in the Gulf region for stopping the increase of the economic expansion of Iraq, as this increase would result to the limitation of the economies of the other Gulf countries. Up to then, the US foreign policy in regard to Iraq seemed to be standardized: US supported the strategic choices of Hussein, who was considered as a strategic ally of US in the greater Gulf region. However, when the pressures from the other countries of the region become quite strong the US government had to choose: should it keep up its excellent relationship with Hussein or it should put an end in this relationship? The second solution was chosen, as proved by the development of military operations against Iraq in 1991.38 According to the above, the US foreign policy, which tends to prefer military operations as a means of conflict resolution, could be considered a partially responsible for the 1991 Gulf War. Still, in the case of Iraq US government had important interests from keeping Hussein in power; the strong pressures from other allies of US was the reason that US government ignored its interests in regard to existing Iraqi government and decided to support the termination of Hussein’s regime. The increase of US’ control in the Gulf region would be possibly achieved by the support of all other countries of the region, a perspective that would be quite strong after the termination of Hussein’s regime. For Yetiv the Gulf war can be considered as one of the most critical challenges that the US foreign policy has to face after the end of the Cold war. It is explained that the specific initiative of US led to the change of the balance of power in the region, improving the position of other countries, such as Egypt but also the Saudi Arabia.39 In addition, the decision of US government to intervene in the crisis between Iraq and Kuwait resulted to the radical deterioration of the relationships between US and Iraq, leading to the Iraq war of 2003 and the termination of the regime of Hussein.40 In his study of 1997 Yetiv noted that US President faced strong oppositions in regard to his intention to use military forces for terminating the crisis between Iraq and Kuwait. It is explained that President Bush had asked for the vote of Congress before proceeding to this plan aiming to secure the justification of his decision, as the decision would affect the US Foreign Policy in Middle East.41 During the discussion of the issue in Congress, in January 1990, doubts were developed as to whether the military intervention of US in Gulf was justified or not, taking into consideration the characteristics of the crisis and the US Foreign Policy so far in regard to Iraq, which used to be a close ally of US.42 These doubts were not able to prevent the positive vote for the beginning of military interventions against Iraq.43 The strong disputes in the Congress in regard to the Iraq-Kuwait crisis proved however that the US Foreign Policy is not standardized; it can be changed under the pressure of political and economic interests even if this interaction is not clear. The above view is aligned with that of Bin et al.. The above researchers noted that Gulf area is a valuable region for international politics and the global market at the level that the region represents ‘about 2/3 of world’s oil reserves’.44 Therefore, the development of strong conflicts for the control of the region is considered as expected. The case of 1991 Gulf War further verified the role of international politics in influencing the political frameworks of countries worldwide.45 Indeed, the 1991 War has proved that the foreign policies of countries can be changed periodically according to the changes in the balance of power in a region. US Foreign policy supported Hussein’s regime; when the other countries of the region, which represented the high majority, joined their forces against this regime, the US Foreign policy changed: the coalition with the opponents of Hussein was considered as more proactive for the interests of US in the Gulf region.46 3. Conclusion According to the issues discussed above, the 1991 has been related to specific events: the invasion of Iraq in Kuwait was used rather for justifying the use of military force against the country. Indeed, it seems that for many years the strategic choices of Iraq were not welcomed by the international community. The efforts of Iraqi government to increase its power within the global market, based mostly on the profits from oil, could not be accepted by other countries with similar economic interests. At this point, US had a critical role: the country had to verify its hegemony in international politics by sending its troops to Iraq. However, the involvement of US in 1991 Gulf war was not an initiative based only on US political agenda. Rather, the development of the war resulted because of the failure of international community, meaning the UN, to establish an effective negotiation process with Iraq. In practice, the efforts made for promoting the peaceful resolution of the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait were quite limited; emphasis was rather given on the use of sanctions against Iraq as a policy for pressuring the country’s government. In other words, in the case of Iraq the international community chose the use of sanctions instead of negotiations, a fact that led to the development of the crisis: the Iraqi government did not change its initial plans since such decision could harm its image in the global community. Rather, it preferred to proceed to a direct opposition with Western governments, a practice that led to beginning of the 1991 Gulf War. This means that the actual cause of the 1991 was the failure of international community to suggest an effective conflict resolution plan, meaning a plan that would not include the use of sanctions and the threatening of the use of military forces as key negotiation terms. The above failure resulted to the worsening of the crisis; then, the 1991 Gulf War appeared as the only potential solution for the termination of the crisis. Bibliography Bin, Alberto, Hill, Richard and Archer Jones. Desert Storm: A Forgotten War Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998. Cashman, Greg and Robinson, Leonard. An Introduction to the Causes of War: Patterns of Interstate Conflict from World War I to Iraq. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Evera, Stephen. Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. New York: Cornell University Press, 1999. Finlan, Alastair. The Gulf War of 1991. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2008. Lordan, Edward. The Case for Combat: How Presidents Persuade Americans to Go to War: How Presidents Persuade Americans to Go to War. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2010. Munro, Alan. Arab Storm: Politics and Diplomacy Behind the Gulf War. London: I.B.Tauris, 2006. Renshon, Stanley. The Political Psychology of the Gulf War: Leaders, Publics, and the Process of Conflict. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1993. Taylor, Phillip. War and the Media: Propaganda and Persuasion in the Gulf War. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992. Yetiv, Steven. Explaining Foreign Policy: U.S. Decision-Making in the Gulf Wars. Baltimore: JHU Press, 2011. Yetiv, Steven. The Persian Gulf Crisis. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997. Read More