The Position of the United States on Iraq in Operation Desert Storm - Essay Example

The position of the USA in the first Iraq War (Operation Desert Storm/ODS An Example of Multilateral Coalition Building 1. Abstract This essay traces the position of the United States on Iraq in Operation Desert Storm. Besides, this work compares the coalition building process in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, attempts to point out the unique circumstances that resulted in the ultimate success of Operation Desert Storm, and reason behind the oppression faced from public and international community in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Besides, this work traces the evolution of foreign policies of the United Sates from Isolationism to Internationalism and the emergence of the new world order. The discussion on alternatives to Military Action, especially Operation Desert Storm evaluates the possible alternatives like international negotiation, allowance of time for withdrawal and economic aid. 2. US Position on Iraq in ODS The Operation Desert Storm or ODS, the military operation conducted by the United States and its supporting nations against Iraq started in January 17, 1991, came to an end in February 28, 1991. National Security Directive 54, by former President Bush, which was issued in 1991 made clear that the main aim of ODS was to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait (Tragert 204). The National Security Directive 54 makes clear that Operation Desert Storm is a military action conducted with the help of the United States’ air, sea, and military forces coordinated with allied forces against Iraq, to withdraw from Kuwait. The ODS was a follow up action to Operation Desert Shield, a military buildup operation conducted in Saudi Arabia. The President George Bush declared a military action, namely Operation Desert Shield to strengthen Saudi Arabia against Saddam Hussein (Meisler 261). This operation aimed to maintain a military force in Saudi Arabia to defend Arab States from external and internal aggressions. Besides, the ODS, a 43 day air campaign was considered as the most successful war conducted by the United States and its allies in 20th Century. The root cause of ODS is the invasion of Iraq on Kuwait on August 2, 1990. The massive air offensive against the Iraqi forces in Iraq and Kuwait started in January 17, 1991. A) Major events in ODS The aerial attack by the allied forces totally destroyed the air defensive system, communication network and oil refineries in Iraq. In addition, the allied forces attacked the Iraqi ground forces situated in Kuwait and Iraq. In February 24, the ground defensive attack against Iraq started from the North Eastern side of Saudi Arabia to Kuwait and Iraq. In February 27, the allied forces captured Kuwait, drove the Iraqi forces from the invaded areas, and destroyed Republican Guard units in Iraq. In February 28, the Iraqi resistance ended, cease fire agreement was signed and the Operation Desert Storm came to an end. The Operation Desert Storm came to an end by President Bush’s declaration of ceasefire (Europa Regional Surveys of the World 2004 Series 458). The main goals of the ODS are to compel the Iraqi forces to withdraw from the invaded areas of Kuwait. The restoration of democracy in Kuwait, protection of American citizens in Kuwait, and promotion of stability in Persian Gulf area are the other goals. But some critics pointed out that the real motive behind the Operation Desert Storm was not withdraw the Iraqi forces from Kuwait, but to overthrow the Saddam government as a by-product of the war in gulf area. As the brutal invasion by Iraq on an independent nation is against world peace and democracy, the goals of ODS were acceptable to allied forces and other nations. But the utter defeat in Operation Desert Storm did not weaken the claim of Iraq on Kuwait. The Iraqi television show broadcasted in 1992, namely "Mirage and Reality" claimed that Kuwait is the 19th province of Iraq, not an independent nation (Lewis A6). The US Position on Iraq in ODS developed due to political, economical and military reasons and interest. The unique circumstances that developed the position of the US can be unearthed by going deep into the root cause of Kuwaiti invasion by Iraq. During the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq was struggling from external debt. The Iraq-Iran war ended in 1998 totally exhausted the economic base of Iraq and was forced to accept loans from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Saddam requested Kuwait and Saudi to cancel the loans but both the nations were not ready to do so. Iraq’s request to cancel the loans and Kuwait’s refusal enraged Saddam Hussein (Pasha 33). Saddam requested again for further economic aid to rebuild the economy, but for vain. Later, Saddam requested Kuwait and Saudi to raise the oil price and to reduce production so as to raise revenue from oil and to rebuild the economy of Iraq. But Kuwait and Saudi were not ready to do so because the lion’s share of their revenue was from oil export. This critical situation of economic crisis forced Saddam to invade Kuwait. The major criticism against the United States on Operation Desert Storm was that the US Ambassador to Iraq assured Saddam Hussein that the United States will not involve in the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait (Fantina 171). Trusting these words, Saddam Hussein immediately invaded Kuwait and was forced to face its consequences. The development of US position is related to the importance of Kuwait as the supplier of oil to America. Besides, America was not ready to give up its influence among the gulf countries and considered Iraq as a serious threat against American interest in the Middle East. So the development of US Position on Iraq in ODS is strictly related to political, economical and military reasons and interests. Ole Gunnar Austvik criticizes that the hidden agenda behind the invasion of Kuwait is to control the rich economy developed from oil export (Austvik 134). The U.S. followed a coherent strategy in ODS because an immediate military action without considering the public opinion and approval from the United Nations may attract disagreement from all sides. So, the U.S. decided to seek consent from the United Nations and to build up a strong coalition of other nations to support the operation. Besides, the Congressional approval to deploy American participation in the operation was equally important. The National Security Directive 54 authorizes armed action in Kuwait and its main purpose is to remove Iraqi invaders from Kuwait (Tragert 204). Other purposes/goals are: to restore democracy and peace in Kuwait, protection of American citizens in Iraq and Kuwait, and to reduce the scope of future conflicts in Gulf region. The success of the ODS and support by United Nations and other coalition nations prove the effectiveness of the coherent strategy adopted by the U.S. in Iraq. B) Isolationism vs. Internationalism in Operation Desert Storm Linda S. Bishai criticizes that the Unites States cannot sustain its supremacy over other nations without using force. So the United States make use of force to secure its positions as the global superpower (Bishai 65). Isolationism and Internationalism are important elements of American foreign policy. Ronald E. Powaski reflects that the policy of American isolationism is as old as United States (Powaski xi). But the end of Cold War resulted in a new world order, the United States as the central figure. The Internationalists criticize that Isolationism is outdated and Internationalism is most suitable for the United States to sustain its importance as the superpower of the world. They point out the role of the United States behind the success of Operation Desert Storm as an example for Internationalism. But the Isolationists justify their position in Operation Desert Storm by pointing out that it is not fair to intervene in political affairs of other nations. The Charter of United States, which was signed in 1945, broadened the scope of internationalist idea in US. (Josephson 9). The Internationalists make clear that it is the duty of the United States to protect its citizens who live abroad. For instance, George Bush, the former President of the United States, is an Internationalist who believed in a new world order, the United States as the centre (Bush and Dietrich 14). In 1991, at the time of the Operation Desert Storm, he pointed out his vision to construct a new world order with peace and security to all nations. But the Isolationists were totally against the foreign policy of George Bush and were against war in Iraq. They claimed that it is not right to intervene in the internal affairs of a nation. But the argument of Isolationists in Operation Desert Storm is less significant because keeping aloof from other parts of the world is not fair in this era of globalization. The Internationalists opine that it is the responsibility of the United States to protect its investments in Gulf region. So they claim that Internationalism is most suitable in this changed world order and the success in Operation Desert Storm proves this fact. C) The position within the political parties The independent attitude of some former Presidents on military operations and foreign policies attracted a great deal of criticism from political parties in America (Ritchie 168). As the political parties in American represent different ideologies, their position in ODS were different. For instance, the Republican Party supported the operation but the Green party was against the operation. The Republicans supported the Operation Desert Storm because they were in favor of national defense. During the vote on the use of force in ODS, the Republican representative Gilman supported President Bush (Hendrickson 29). But they were against the interventionist foreign policy actions. For instance, Republicans were against intervention of the United States in World War I and World War II. The Democratic Party is with liberal attitude (Social Liberalism) and the largest political party in USA. But the position of the Democratic Party in invasion of Kuwait and related issues was ambiguous. For instance, some of the leaders like Harry Reid made clear that war in Middle East cannot be considered as success. But other representatives like Sam Nunn and Edward Kennedy supported the intervention of the United States in Kuwait (Workers League 178). Besides, they strongly opposed the Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Libertarians in the political scenario of the United States is against the military interventions by the US Forces in every nook and corner of the world. The issue of gender discrimination pointed out by McSally, during Operation Desert Storm, forced the Libertarians to consider it as a violation of individual rights during a military operation (Frantzich 66). Libertarians made clear that they don’t believe that military actions can resolve all the problems in the world. The responsibility of the United States is to help other nations to realize the importance of liberty, not military intervention and aggression. So, one can see that Libertarians were totally against the ODS and other military operations conducted by United States and its allies. The Green Party in the United Sates strongly supports world peace and non-violence. As the Green Party was recognized as a national party in 2001, its role and position in ODS is limited. D) Public Opinion in ODS The polls conducted in March 1991 prove that two-third of the public were in favor of military action in Iraq (Joseph 119). The public opinion/attitude towards ODS formed by polls, printed media, television; radio, rally etc prove that the multilateral policy of the United States of America was acceptable and appreciable. The general notion on the ODS was that the Bush Administration attempted to restore the old world order. Besides, the traditional notions of national security rely upon multilateral policy. The public supported the ODS because it was an attempt to restore democracy and peace in the Middle East Asia. But when the decision to use force in Kuwait was taken, the public shifted their opinion and opposed the military operation. But they were not against further economic embargo on Iraq. In September 1990, majority of the people in America were in favor of providing more time to Iraq to leave from Kuwait (Joseph 119). Later, people were ready to support the president to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invasion. The approval ratings given to the President Bush prove that the public supported the Operation to liberate Kuwait from the clutches of Iraq (Joseph 119). The post war evaluation of the public opinion on ODS prove that the people totally reversed their attitude and were in favor of military action with less bloodshed. Besides, post war polls prove that the public consider the Operation in the gulf region as the triumph for the U.S. Forces and is helpful to increase US influence over other nations (Joseph 119). The post war polls demonstrate the approval of the public for the increasing need of a new world order. In addition, the element of patriotism and cohesion can be seen among the public by supporting the President and the United States of America. The public opinion issues after ODS and during the Clinton Administration concerning Iraq prove that convincing the use of force in international operations is difficult in America. For instance, when Saddam obstructed the WMD inspections in 1998, Clinton administration faced severe oppression from public and was forced to restrain further military operations in Iraq. The continuation of WMD inspection attracted oppression from the public and it shows that they were against another war in Iraq (McInerney and Vallely 29). When one considers international security, in 2003, Saddam government was not an immediate threat to its neighboring countries but Iraq’s previous record of aggression and large scale breach of international laws forced the United States to suspect the possibility of WMD in Iraq. Robbin F. Laird and Holger H. Mey opine that: “The need to have unilateral capabilities to protect national interests” (Laird and Mey 7). For America, an amalgam of unilateralism and multilateralism is important to guard national interests and to sustain international security. Concerning Iraq, Clinton Administration faced severe oppression from the public and was unable to proceed with major military operations in Iraq. 3) Coalition Building in ODS and Operation Iraqi Freedom The role of the United Nations Security Council in the Operation Desert Storm was not limited to the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, but it included the protection of minority population in Persian Gulf and humanitarian aid to Kurds (Malone 5). The success of ODS is deeply indebted to the coalition building process. From the resolution 678 by the Security Council (UN), sanctioned in 1990, one can see that ample time was allowed for the Iraqi forces to leave Kuwait (Malone 140). Besides, the Resolution 678 states that if the Iraqi forces are not ready to quit Kuwait within the allowed time limit, the UN Security Council will be forced to implement the Resolution 660, which allows the use of force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Within a limited time, a coalition consisting 34 nations were assembled under the leadership of the United States of America. Prior to the ODS, some GCC nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait considered Iran as an able state to withstand threat from Iraq and were eager to sustain warm relation with Iran(Rubin 1). Besides, these nations were well aware of the fact that Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein will be the greatest threat against peace in Middle Eastern region of Asia. The nations like Japan and Germany did not join the coalition forces, but were ready to support the operation by the means of financial support. The majority of the members of coalition forces were the US troops. Besides, at the initial stage, many of the members of the coalition forces were not ready to join the same. Some of the nations like China considered that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is only an internal affair of the countries in Gulf region and other countries do not have the moral right to interfere or attack Iraq. In addition, some Arabian countries felt that the ODS will be helpful for the United States increase their presence and influence in the Middle Eastern regions of Asia. But there exist some criticism that the Operation Desert Storm failed to meet its political and military aims. Besides, it did not exert any positive effect on the reputation of the United States as a superpower (Alterman A17). Totally, the coalition building process in ODS helped to expel Iraq from Kuwait and to restore peace in gulf region. The Operation Iraqi Freedom, initiated on March 20, 2003, aimed to overthrow the rule of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The root cause of the operation was to overthrow Saddam and to secure the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). At the initial stage of the operation, over 47 nations supported the United States. The majority of invading forces in concluded the American forces but the Kurdish troops in Iran strongly supported them. But when the United Nations disapproved a preemptive action against Iraq, some of the coalition partners like Britain and Australia hesitated to support the United States. But the prime ministers of Britain and Australia supported the OIF and were ready to fight against Saddam. The disagreement from the side of UN created an atmosphere of polarization among the world nations as supporters of OIF and non-supporters. Besides, some nations like Germany which supported the United States in Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), pointed out that the OIF created the atmosphere of losing support of international community which consider war as a serious threat to world peace. So, the coalition building process at the time of OIF was not easy but the aim to dethrone Saddam was fulfilled. But the report released by CIA makes clear that they were not able to trace WMD in Iraq. Other non-supporters of the OIF criticize that the United States of America and its allies showed less interest to provide priority to the UN, EU and NATO. Besides, the restoration of Democracy in Iraq is still a major problem in the Middle East. The support and involvement of Security Council in Operation Desert Storm provided the multilateral identity and international support to the operation. The multilateral approach helped to dispel the Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Besides, the multilateral approach helped the President Bush to gain support from the allied forces and to use force to defeat Iraq. When ODS is compared with OIF, the morality behind the aggression is questioned because the allied forces were unable to trace any evidence for WMD in Iraq. But when a nuclear threat occurs, it is important to achieve dominance. This critical situation forced the United States to proceed without the support of Security Council and international community. Besides, the aggressiveness shown by Saddam Hussein to occupy Kuwait in 1990s arouse suspicion from the side of the United States that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons and will be a threat against world peace. But in OIF, the traditional diplomacy shown by the United States in international issues was totally violated. During the OIF, the United States did not seek approval from the United National and it was a unilateral operation. The invasion upon a sovereign state, without the support of Security Council attracted condemnation from international community. Besides, it was considered as the violation of international law. When the allied forces were unable to trace any nuclear weapons in Iraq, the morality of the United States was questioned and most of the non-supporters criticized that the real aim of the United States was not to disarm Iraq but to dethrone Saddam and to control the natural resources in the Middle Eastern region of Asia. 4) Alternatives to Military Action Patchen makes clear that one possible way to avoid military action is to form the threat of the same into a warning (Patchen 185). The global spread of terrorism and related issues broaden the scope of military issues. But when one considers the scope of economic sanctions to fight against the same, there exist so many alternatives to military actions. But the threats of nuclear weapons that can be easily acquired by terrorists force the world to consider that military actions are essential to maintain world peace. But circumstance which forced the United States and its allies to use military force to dispel Iraq from Kuwait was different. Iraq invaded Kuwait without any solid reason of threat from Kuwait. A) Alternatives to ODS The Chapter VII of the Security Council makes clear that it is important to intervene in international conflicts by means of economic or military sanctions (Belgrad and Nachmias 175). When alternatives other than military Operation like ODS come under consideration, the first choice will be to allow more time for the Iraqi forces to withdraw from Kuwait. Even the public in America was in favor of providing more time for the withdrawal. But the disagreement shown by Saddam Hussein to ignore the deadline provided by the United Nations proves that extending the deadline was of no use. The attitude of Saddam Hussein to ignore the opinion of international community proves that his aim of invasion was not temporary but permanent. In this situation, the scope of extending the deadline for withdrawal is limited. If the international community consider the invasion as an internal affair in gulf region, the after effects may be horrible. For instance, Saddam’s next aim might be to invade Saudi Arabia and other neighboring countries. Another possible alternative is international negotiation to withdraw the Iraqi forces from Kuwait. But prior track record of Iraq under Saddam as a despotic leader and continuous war with their neighboring nations like Iran prove that negotiation will be futile. Besides, Iraq was not ready to abide international laws related to war and peace keeping. So, the scope of international negotiation as an alternative to avoid military action is limited. The best possible alternative to avoid ODS was to provide economic aid to boost the Iraqi economy. The root cause of invasion was economic crisis in Iraq due to the war with Iran. Besides, Iraq secured money for the war by accepting economic aid from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The war with Iran totally destroyed the economy of Iraq. Besides, Saddam wanted to prove his people that he was capable to lead Iraq to economic progress. But his continuous requests to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to cancel the loan and for further economic aid became futile. The ultimate aim of Iraq by invading Kuwait was to control the oil wells in Kuwait and to negotiate with international community by demanding more prices on oil. Saddam’s aim was to extend his influence to other gulf countries like Saudi Arabia, rich in oil sources. But the economic crisis due to the war with a neighboring nation is not an excuse to invade another independent nation. The coalition members who supported the Operation Desert Storm continuously advised Saddam Hussein that his attempt to stay and fight will destroy his country but he was not ready to withdraw from Kuwait and to keep Iraq away from another war (Sciolino A10). The critical situation in Iraq forced Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait. From a different angle of view, invasion of Kuwait may be to attract international attention towards the economic condition of Iraq and to seek economic aid to rebuild the economy. But the sudden decision of the United Nations, United States and its allies to use military force to dispel Iraq from Kuwait limited the expectation of Iraq for economic aid. Instead, Iraq was forced to withdraw from Kuwait and to face the after effects of another drastic war. B) Clinton policy on Iraq The final four years of President Clinton proves that he was not ready to tackle Iraq due to some political risks (Robert and Lansford 28). The foreign policies of the former President Bill Clinton attracted much criticism in America and abroad. The weakness shown by Clinton to tackle the crisis during Iraqi aggression of Kuwait attracted much domestic criticism in America (Davis 154). For example, in 1993, Clinton ordered to attack Baghdad aiming the Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS) building. The root cause of the attack was the violation of an agreement by Iraq to eliminate its WMD. But Saddam was not ready to allow the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) team to enter Iraq and to inspect the progress of the agreement. In 1998, Clinton ordered to attack Iraq and it resulted in bombing consecutively for four days. The Liberation Act, signed into law by Clinton in 1998 aimed to restore democracy in Iraq. But unilateral approach adopted by Clinton to attack Iraq proved to be futile and was the violation of international Law by invading an independent nation. The after effect of this attack (Operation Desert Fox) was that Saddam rejected further inspection in Iraq for WMD. Besides, the UN sanctions on Iraq by the Security Council decision was in force and Clinton did not take any measure to eradicate the same. These sanctions on Iran contributed to the rate of child mortality in Iraq. The Law of H.R. 4655, signed by Clinton came into force in 1998, aimed to dethrone Saddam and to disarm Iraq. But the Law did not contain any policy of the usage of force in Iraq. But this ended in a bombing for four days in Iraq by the US Forces. During the presidency of Clinton, the U.S. Aircrafts routinely attacked the Iraqi forces. But the after effect of the routine attack was that the unilateral approach adopted by Clinton in Iraq proved futile. The valuation of Clinton policy on Iraq proves that it was not successful and was unable to fulfill the aim. 5. Conclusion The success of Operation Desert Storm paved the way for a new world which consists of the United States as the central position of all international affairs related to war, peace keeping, trade and commerce. The evaluation of US position on Iraq in ODS makes clear that it resulted the end of Isolationism, gradual growth of Internationalism and influence over other nations. Besides, the coalition building process in ODS and OIF were different. The sanction from United Nations and international community helped the US government to form a strong coalition force against Iraq. But it OIF, situation was different and there was less support from the side of the United Nations and international community. When one considers the scope of alternatives to military actions, especially to ODS, the scope of negotiation and allowing more time for the withdrawal is limited. But when one considers the motive behind the invasion, the scope of economic aid to boost the Iraqi economy is wide. 6. Bibliography Austvik, Ole Gunnar. “The War over the Price of Oil; Oil and the conflict on the Persian Gulf.” International Journal of Global Energy Issues. l.5.2/3/4 (1993): 134-143. Alterman, Eric. “Dialogue: The Gulf Wars Aftermath Is the Vietnam Syndrome Dead?; No, Hussein Was One of a Kind”. The New York Times 4 March 1991: A17. Bishai, Linda S. “Liberal empire.” Journal of International Relations and Development. 7.1 (2004): 48-72. Belgrad, Eric A, and Nitza Nachmias. The politics of international humanitarian aid operations. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997. Bush, George Walker, and John W. Dietrich. The George W. Bush foreign policy reader: presidential speeches and commentary. U S A: M.E. Sharpe, 2005. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=iL_iR1TYnG4C&printsec=frontcover&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false Davis, John. Presidential policies and the road to the second Iraq war: from Forty One to Forty Three. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=f_WvBMegqkAC&printsec=frontcover&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false Europa Regional Surveys of the World 2004 Series. The Middle East and North Africa 2004, Volume 50. London: Routledge, 2004. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=pP315Mw3S9EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false Fantina, Robert. Desertion and the American soldier, 1776-2006. U S A: Algora Publishing, 2006. Frantzich, Stephen E. Citizen democracy: political activists in a cynical age. USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=18OA-2EH7i0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false Hendrickson, Ryan C. The Clinton wars: the constitution, Congress, and war powers. United States of America: Vanderbilt University Press, 2002. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=fBJcH2lUk7gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false Joseph, Paul. Peace politics: the United States between the old and new world orders. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993. Josephson, Harold. James T. Shotwell and the rise of internationalism in America. United States of America: Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 1974. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=tilXmZYRGsMC&printsec=frontcover&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false Lewis, Paul. “Immovable Object; Granite Regime of Saddam Hussein Seems Little Worn by Political Storm”. The New York Times 31 July 1992: A6. Laird, Robbin F, and Holger H. Mey. The Revolution in Military Affairs: Allied Perspectives. Washington: DIANE Publishing, 1999. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=wNX03vVGfwEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false McInerney, Thomas, and Paul E. Vallely. Endgame: the blueprint for victory in the war on terror. USA: Regnery Publishing, 2004. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=M4Ml34MgkDQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false Malone, David. The UN Security Council: from the Cold War to the 21st century. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004. Meisler, Stanley. United Nations: the first fifty years. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1995. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vnfy4oBBHIoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=United+Nations:+the+first+fifty+years&ei=pXMNS7StGJLUkwTC6t3aAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false Pasha, Aftab Kamal. Iraq: sanctions and wars. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2003. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=i_gAEnIWMUcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Iraq:+sanctions+and+wars&ei=1XMNS5KeO4HClQSx6LD5AQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false Powaski, Ronald E. Toward an entangling alliance: American isolationism, internationalism, and Europe, 1901-1950. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1991. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZDAoVZqHwocC&dq=Isolationism&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_navlinks_s Sciolino, Elaine. “War in the Gulf: Iraqi Leader; Husseins Errors: Complex Impulses.” The New York Times 28 February 1991: A10. Tragert, Joseph. The complete idiots guide to understanding Iraq. Indianapolis: Alpha Books, 2003. Patchen, Martin. Resolving disputes between nations: coercion or conciliation. USA: Duke University Press, 1988. Pauly, Robert J, and Tom Lansford. Strategic preemption: U.S. foreign policy and the second Iraq war. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005. Rubin, Barry. “An essay on Arab lessons from the 1991 Kuwait crisis and war.” MERIA Journal. 5.2 (2001): 1. Ritchie, Donald A. The Congress of the United States: A Student Companion. New York: Oxford University Press US, 2006. Workers League (U.S.). Desert slaughter: the imperialist war against Iraq. Michigan: Mehring Books, 1991. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ixp-83qslMsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false Read More