[GandalfTheGrey]

The threat of an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia was what prompted Operation Desert Shield.

does this make sense?

I was thinking about this, and looking back at the US-led response, it doesn't quite add up to me. Everyone knows about the white house woman (forget what position she held) who told Tariq Aziz that the US was not interested in getting involved in a possible Iraq-Kuwait dispute - after he openly told the US Iraq was about to attack. Was this a gigantic miscommunication?

So what am I missing here? The US knew that Iraq was about to attack Kuwait, and seemingly gave approval for it. Or did they genuinely believe Saddam was bluffing and were caught off guard when he actually did attack?

Consider US's strategic position - Iraq right up until that point was a staunch US ally. And its not as if Saddam was suddenly out of control - the country was devastated by the 8 year war with Iran. And he basically asked the US's permission to invade Kuwait. There was obvious goodwill on Saddam's side - why wouldn't the US want to keep their strategic ally? Had the strategic use of Iraq expired by that stage? Maybe they figured the buffer against Iran was no longer needed - since Iran too was exhausted by the 8 year war.

Then there is that supposed threat of an invasion in Saudi Arabia. I find it difficult to believe that Saddam would be foolhardy to consider this. And why would the US think that there was any threat of this? By politely informing them of their intentions in Kuwait, I would take that as a reassurance that Iraq is basically saying "thats all we want". The US had spent well over a decade apologising for Saddam's excesses and attempting to cover them up (Halabja was originally an Iranian operation according to the US). Why would they suddenly stop now over such a small issue?

No one loved Kuwait, it certainly wasn't something worth marshalling an international coalition over - or so I would have thought.

Possible alternative explanation: 1990 - the Berlin wall has just fallen, the Soviet Union's satelites in Eastern Europe had all fallen. America still didn't have any clue that the Soviet Union was itself about to collapse. Was this a statement of strength by the US - particularly aimed at the Soviet Union? Strategic manouvering not in anticipation of an imminent Soviet collapse, but more a case of "kick-em while he's down". Basically just another strike in the cold war?

Or could it be something so mundane as President Bush seeing a great opportunity for a Thatcher-esque re-election war?

[Rich]

Iraq had 3 millon bpd. Add in Kuwait that makes 6 million barrels per day. Although Saddam wasn't threatening immediate invasion of Saudi he was in a position to threaten them in the future if he was given the chance to consolidate his acquisition. He could also potentially make a second more successful attack against oil rich Khuzestan. It stands to reason America wouldn't let the invasion of Kuwait stand. Look what Saddam did to the leadership of the Baath Party. he was seriously dangerous and unpredictable.

[Smilin' Dave]

does this make sense?

It might be more correct to say a key element of the path to war was a perceived threat from Iraq to its neighbours, resulting in various destabilising effects (a more power Iraq potentially being seen as less stable than the status quo). Doesn't really roll off the tongue though

Everyone knows about the white house woman (forget what position she held) who told Tariq Aziz that the US was not interested in getting involved in a possible Iraq-Kuwait dispute - after he openly told the US Iraq was about to attack. Was this a gigantic miscommunication?

I think you're referring to April Glaspie. It may have been a miscommunication. It has been suggested that Glaspie might have misinterpreted Saddam's intentions (either with the troop build up, or the purpose the talks themselves) or that the message she gave was misinterpretted. Saying a nation-state has no opinion on something is a pretty neutral statement, it's not an exlicit green light... but to the Iraqis who either wanted a green light or some assurance that the US wouldn't intervene, it probably sounded great.

The subsequent US reaction somewhat confirms that the US hadn't intended to okay an invasion of Kuwait, unless you assume it was all a masterful trap.

Then there is that supposed threat of an invasion in Saudi Arabia. I find it difficult to believe that Saddam would be foolhardy to consider this. And why would the US think that there was any threat of this? By politely informing them of their intentions in Kuwait, I would take that as a reassurance that Iraq is basically saying "thats all we want".

This assumes partly that the US perceived the Iraqis as having told them this, which I'm not sure is the case.

Consider also the basis for Iraq's dispute with Kuwait, outstanding loans and oil prices. Pretty much the same situation applied to Saudi Arabia. One could assume from this that the Iraqis would, having tried to sort out their 'problem' with an invasion the first time, might do it again the second time.

Possible alternative explanation: 1990 - the Berlin wall has just fallen, the Soviet Union's satelites in Eastern Europe had all fallen. America still didn't have any clue that the Soviet Union was itself about to collapse. Was this a statement of strength by the US - particularly aimed at the Soviet Union? Strategic manouvering not in anticipation of an imminent Soviet collapse, but more a case of "kick-em while he's down". Basically just another strike in the cold war?

Hmm... it would seem to be a odd way of sending the message. Striking against an actual Soviet proxy would have seemed a stronger message rather than for the US to attack a state seen as their proxy.

Or could it be something so mundane as President Bush seeing a great opportunity for a Thatcher-esque re-election war?

Perhaps. The relatively rapid response to the invasion might have been a side effect of the pending election.

[Lexington]

The only way I can understand the Gulf War is to see it as a failure of American diplomacy.

[Rokossovsky]

Having recently read Robert Fisk's excellent book "The Great War for Civilisation" there is another possible explanation. Iraq had become so used to being given a free hand in the middle east by the United States that it did not anticipate an armed reaction to the invasion of Kuwait.

For example Iraqi missiles hit the USS Stark in 1987 killing 37 sailors. The United States was initially more than happy to publicly blame this on Iran, despite the fact that the missiles came from an Iraqi Mirage jet. Iraqi use of gas in the Iran-Iraq war and against its own people was glossed over by the State Department.

Iraq had no reason to believe that the United States would actively oppose an invasion of Kuwait. However it failed to take into account shifts in the established world order and the strategic importance of Saudi Arabia to the USA.

[GandalfTheGrey]

It might be more correct to say a key element of the path to war was a perceived threat from Iraq to its neighbours, resulting in various destabilising effects

Iraq should have been seen as the US's bitch - even Iraq seemed eager to play that role. I don't see any sort of "slippery slope" being created from Iraq conquering Kuwait. No one cared about them - they were a tinpot, oppressive, and (in the eyes of many - arab and westerners alike), artificial and illigitimate. Saddam surely understood that Saudi Arabia was a completely different kettle of fish to Kuwait, and I can't believe the US didn't understand that Saddam understood this. I really can't see any reason why anyone would think that Saudi Arabia would be threatened by Iraq.

Iraq should have been the US's bullwark against a whole host of threats to their energy supplies. And for this role, it is far better for it to have an economy that wasn't a complete basket case. What Kuwait was doing to Iraq - in the context of the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war - was causing Iraq to become an economic basket case.

Hmm... it would seem to be a odd way of sending the message. Striking against an actual Soviet proxy would have seemed a stronger message rather than for the US to attack a state seen as their proxy.

Yes, probably. An actual invasion and occupation of Iraq - to gain a foothold in the energy centre of the world - would be of huge strategic importance in a cold war context. But of course George H. balked at that. Nonetheless, I am recalling more details of the lead-up, and I remember that there was a bit of too-ing and throwing between the US and Soviet Union about whether or not the Soviet Union should join the coalition. As I recall I think they eventually decided to provide some financial assistance rather than military, which was met with some scorn from the west. From this I can sort of see what the US might have been playing - demonstrating - or rather teasing - the USSR that they could create and lead this grand international coalition at will - and therefore they were the true superpower of the world, and that no one wants to listen to the USSR any more... or something.

[Rich]

Iraq should have been seen as the US's bitch

Why because it would satisfy your anti americanism.

- even Iraq seemed eager to play that role.

No they didn't. Saddam did everything for Saddam. He had a third of the Baath parties leadership shot by the other two thirds bcause he wanted absolute and total power in Iraq and to fallstall the union with Syria which would have left Assad as leader when al Baker died or stood down, not to please America. He stuck one in the eye to the Soviet Union because he wanted to be no one's bitch not because he wanted to be America's bitch. On invading Kuwait, Saddam took all foreign citizens hostage, including American and Soviet ones. He pissed everyone off. Remember even Hitler never did anything like that in the thirties.

I don't see any sort of "slippery slope" being created from Iraq conquering Kuwait. No one cared about them - they were a tinpot, oppressive, and (in the eyes of many - arab and westerners alike), artificial and illegitimate. Saddam surely understood that Saudi Arabia was a completely different kettle of fish to Kuwait, and I can't believe the US didn't understand that Saddam understood this. I really can't see any reason why anyone would think that Saudi Arabia would be threatened by Iraq.

Saddam was interested in expansion in becoming a world super power. If he consolidated Kuwait, and built up his military and then grabbed the Saudi oil fields it would be way harder to stop him. Just because the Sauds were producing 8 mbpd didn't mean America or even Gorbachev who was a rather reasonable sort of fellow wanted Saddam controlling 6mbpd.

Iraq should have been the US's bullwark against a whole host of threats to their energy supplies.

Yes in anti imperialist fantasy land.

Hmm... it would seem to be a odd way of sending the message.

yes because they weren't trying to send a message, but responding to an wanted and unexpected crisis.

[Smilin' Dave]

Saddam surely understood that Saudi Arabia was a completely different kettle of fish to Kuwait, and I can't believe the US didn't understand that Saddam understood this. I really can't see any reason why anyone would think that Saudi Arabia would be threatened by Iraq.

While Kuwait wasn't a particularly well liked state, it wasn't an enemy of the US or anything. So while Iraq invading Iran was fine, the invasion of Kuwait set a troubling precedent. If the US didn't perceive the Iraqis as having asked for a green light first (or indeed thought they had told the Iraqis to seek alternate means of redress), then it looks a lot like your regional strongman has gone off the rails and was behaving erratically. Saudi Arabia didn't exactly cover itself with glory in its reaction to the Iraqi threat, so the US were probably a bit worried. On a strictly military analysis, Saudi forces really struggled at the battle of Khafji.

Thinking about this as I read it, the battle of Khafji actually suggests that the Iraqis really might have gone a bit overboard. Not only did they decide to escalate things by attacking Saudi territory, they did so while US forces were present. Consider also that the US initial reaction was to call for Iraqi withdrawal... which would have been a pretty good outcome for the Iraqis and if the US were keen to keep a regional proxy, a good deal for all. Instead Saddam decided to try and set conditions of his own about unrelated regional issues. None of this suggests an entirely rational player, so maybe it is hard to judge what the Iraqis really understood when they embarked on the whole show.

[CounterChaos]

There is not one place in there GandalfTheGrey where I see you mention oil....... It is like it is some dirty word or something that should never be considered. I really don't understand this. You write:

Maybe they figured the buffer against Iran was no longer needed - since Iran too was exhausted by the 8 year war.

That's it. The oil fields were now open for us to take. Kuwait, just gave us a reason to do it.

I really do not understand why people want to make the obvious complicated - is it because we are ashamed to face the reality that our leadership are selfish capitalistic pricks? It is no secret that our entire economy is based on oil.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Thinking about this as I read it, the battle of Khafji actually suggests that the Iraqis really might have gone a bit overboard. Not only did they decide to escalate things by attacking Saudi territory, they did so while US forces were present.

well you're talking about events that happened after hostilities had already began. The allies had been bombing Iraqi positions for several days. You could say that all bets were off by that stage - Saddam probably felt desperate and reckless enough to tryanything to save face.

Consider also that the US initial reaction was to call for Iraqi withdrawal... which would have been a pretty good outcome for the Iraqis

from Kuwait? How would that be a good outcome for Iraq? Not only does it not solve the problem of Kuwait holding them hostage economically, they are publicly humiliated in front of all her enemies. I just think the US could have been a bit more empathetic to a monster they basically created and cheered on for over a decade. They should have anticipated that Saddam would want to make this move, and they should even have been part of the planning of it. All in all, I think they could reasonably expect a bit more return on their investment than just stopping the Iranian revolution from spreading west. I think Kuwait could be considered an acceptable price for keeping a reliable proxy in that region.

and if the US were keen to keep a regional proxy, a good deal for all.

Which in the end was what the US tried to do anyway. Well not as a proxy anymore, but they certainly wanted to keep the stability that Saddam provided. This turned out to be far more burdensome and costly for the US than it could have been: 12 years of keeping up no-fly zones, endless campaigning to keep up the sanctions - not to mention the human cost of the sanctions. How much did this cost the US? And thats not even mentioning the revenues that might have been had if Saddam had still been friendly and allowed US firms in to exploit the vast oil reserves - utilizing infrastructure that would not have been devastated by a decade of sanctions.

edit:

That's it. The oil fields were now open for us to take. Kuwait, just gave us a reason to do it.

To do what? Did the US march in to Iraq and grab the oil there? No. In fact as far as the US wanting control of Iraq's oil is concerned, it seems the Gulf War created the worst of both worlds: they not only didn't take control of the country, they left it in the hands of a strongman who at an instant went from staunch ally to worst enemy. In my scenario, if the US allowed Iraq to gain control of oil rich Kuwait, the US could keep its most valuable regional ally - who now could recover their economy after 8 years of devastating war. An economically strong Iraq would be good for the US who could send in their oil multinationals into an oil rich country who would now be rich enough afford the proper infrastructure to maximize extraction.

Of course I'm not ignoring the importance of oil - in fact the mystery for me is why the US would put Iraq in a situation that was no longer profitable for them economically (oil) as well as strategically.

[Smilin' Dave]

well you're talking about events that happened after hostilities had already began. The allies had been bombing Iraqi positions for several days. You could say that all bets were off by that stage - Saddam probably felt desperate and reckless enough to tryanything to save face.

Yes, but on the other hand most people don't think the best solution to a zany scheme is an even zanier scheme. Saddam's apparent purpose in attacking Khafji was to escalate the conflict, but a rational player would surely have seen this would risk his troops far more than the current situation and wouldn't resolve it either.

from Kuwait? How would that be a good outcome for Iraq? Not only does it not solve the problem of Kuwait holding them hostage economically

On the other hand Kuwait could have been trashed (limiting their capabilities, especially if their oil wells were destroyed) and Iraq's military would be intact, Saddam is in a good position to hit the Kuwaitis again if 'get out of line'.

they are publicly humiliated in front of all her enemies.

Being bombed for no apparent gain can't have impressed them much either. It also would have been semi-humiliating for Coalition hawks if Saddam essentially 'got away with it'.

How much did this cost the US? And thats not even mentioning the revenues that might have been had if Saddam had still been friendly and allowed US firms in to exploit the vast oil reserves - utilizing infrastructure that would not have been devastated by a decade of sanctions.

That the US were willing to wear the costs of their campaign against Iraq for so long strongly suggests that they felt that Iraq had gone too far this time and was irredemable. It also argues against the idea that it was a show of force to impress the Soviets (or members of some new world order), it wasn't a particularly good show as Iraq survived but the US were clearly still messing around.

[GandalfTheGrey]

That the US were willing to wear the costs of their campaign against Iraq for so long strongly suggests that they felt that Iraq had gone too far this time and was irredemable.

But not so irredeemable for them to allow him to stay in power and even passively prop him up against internal threats. The policy the US took towards Saddam during the sanction years was the worst of both worlds - he was public enemy number one on the one hand, but on the other hand he had to be preserved as the necessary "strongman" to hold Iraq together - as Thomas Friedman so famously argued at the time. Thus the US gave a nod and a wink to Saddam as he brutally suppressed the shiite uprising of 1991. As I mentioned before, this was the worst case scenario from an economic and strategic point of view. They should have either eliminated Saddam altogether and installed another loyal strongman, or supported and empowered him.

[Rich]

The policy the US took towards Saddam during the sanction years was the worst of both worlds - he was public enemy number one on the one hand, but on the other hand he had to be preserved as the necessary "strongman" to hold Iraq together - as Thomas Friedman so famously argued at the time.

Well yes long term it was an absolute catastrophe, but in the short term it worked rather well. Any time the President wanted to look presidential, he could go out and bomb Iraq. Remember Clinton had serious issues like the Lewinsky business to deal with, he couldn't be worrying about Middle East trivia.

They should have either eliminated Saddam altogether and installed another loyal strongman, or supported and empowered him.

Saddam wasn't loyal, aside from Britain who is? Most strongmen in the world detest America, why would they be loyal. Even the Israelis despise America and would drop America in 5 minutes if they considered it in their interests to do so. Don't confuse people humouring American bullshit with loyalty. American support can only influence things at the margin. American favoured partners were only able to overthrow, Mossadeq, Allende and all the rest because very large numbers of people supported their overthrow. In many cases American support actually diminishes your chances of remaining in power. Qadaffi and Mubarak and the Shah were all made much more unpopular by perceived friendliness to the West.

Saddam wasn't installed by America. America are incapable of installing obedient clients. Even with 150000 troops in the country after they removed Saddam the Americans still ended up with Iranian allies in power.

[Repeat to Fade]

The reason for your misunderstanding is because you haven't grasped the truth of Iraq/US relations. It is not true they were staunch allies. Support only really started in 1982 when Iraq was near defeat. It at the time was on the list of state terror sponsors. They were removed to make support easier but the US knew damn well that that had not ceased. The US was not supporting Iraq because it liked it, it supported Iraq because it hated Iran and this was the middle of the cold war and you had to choose sides in every conflict. But the US did not want either side to win, what was desirable was for both sides to fight a very long protracted war that hurt both sides and kept the communists out of the region.

With the end of the Iran/Iraq and cold war the relationship returned to it's pre-war state.

[Rich]

and this was the middle of the cold war and you had to choose sides in every conflict..

Hardly the middle but that's just a pedantic point. The United States and the Soviet Union were both supporting Saddam, so that's no justification. You could argue that case for Reagan and Thatcher's support for the Khmer Rouge but not for Saddam.