Introduction
The Iraqi war which is simply know as Gulf war. It was a war that was conducted by the United Nations coalition force that was comprised of 34 nations. The United States led that force against Iraq due to the point that Iraq was annexed and invaded by the Kuwait. The war was began in 2nd August 1992. In 1990, troops from Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Iraqi action necessitated the largest military mobilisation after the World War 2 (Austvik & Gunnar 2003). The Iraqi troops began to invade Kuwait in 2nd August 1990. It was fulfilled with condemnation of the international communities. It brought instant economic sanctions against Iraq by different members of the security council of the United States. President of the United States send forces of America to Saudi Arabia.
Besides this, he also urged other nations to send their armies as well to that region. In this way, a coalition was formed among armies of different nations. It was led by the United States. Most of the military forces were from United States, while Egypt, United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia were the major contributors. The initial conflict was began on January 1991 to remove the troops of Iraq from the territory of Kuwait by aerial bombardment. The ground assault was followed after that on January 23. It was a great victory for the coalition forces who removed the Iraqi troops from Kuwait (Menashri, 2010).
One of the questions that raised due to the outbreak of this war is “why Iraq invaded Kuwait”. The Iraq war and especially the behaivors of Iraq creates several questions about why their leaders preferred war and war related strategies? Why Sadam Hussain, the leader of one of the oil rich country invade Kuwait, even after the debilitating and long war against the Iran? Why he refused all diplomatic offers of withdraw from the territory of Kuwait and persisted to invade Kuwait and faced heavy defeat against Coalition force led by the United States army. This paper will discuss the several aspects of the Iraqi war such as policy of America, crisis faced by Iraq during that period and others by keeping the liberal idea in focus.
Discussion
According to the liberalism opinion, it was rationale response from Iraq due to their national interest. During its war against Iran, they suffered from the massive destruction of their infrastructure. When the war against Iran ended, the debts of the country reached up to 80 billion dollars and Kuwait was the largest creditor. Besides this, hostilities were there between Kuwait and Iraq and Iraqi accusations that Kuwait intentionally make the prices of oil to be decreased in the international market by producing the large quota of oil. In that situation, Iraqi government had feared that they may face significant collapse. According to the…….. If the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait will not resolved, then invasion of rich but weak Kuwait was the best option and possibly the only option to survive. On the other hand, the classical liberal theory also tried to explain the two main points the moral legitimacy of the United States led coalition military operation and invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi troops according to the international agreement (Austvik & Gunnar 2003).
United Nations played an important role in the Gulf war. During 1990 and 1991, the general council of United Nation passed 19 resolutions that are related to the Gulf crisis. These resolutions include the non-violent means to pressure Iraq to leave from Kuwait. Other Arab countries isolated the Iraq and supported the United Nation. International community tried all attempts including “international sanctions” to resolve this issue peacefully before moving towards a sanction 678, which encouraged the use of force. After the declaration of the war, Bush praised the diplomatic efforts of the United Nation, different international communities and Arab leaders to avoid the War.
In that situation, war was only the option left after the failure of all diplomatic efforts to deal with that dispute. One of the major reasons of the failure of all diplomatic efforts is the Iraq failed to respond to the demands of the international community. Besides this, Iraq also threatened the security of other United Nation member countries particularly its neighbouring countries, which put the global security in danger (Blum & William 2005). The ethics of actions during the war could be gauged by the limitation of the military operation within the Kuwait borders. The sovereignty and integrity of the Iraqi border were respected. The vast scale of the involvement of the international community might be seen as appropriate moral legitimacy to justify the Gulf war (Mearsheimer, & Walt, 2003).
In light of this reality the Gulf War appeared to be a simply war, the term got from the “Just War Theory” which manages the morals of both the choice to go to war and lead amid the war. As far as the choice to start the Gulf war ethical quality could be demonstrated by the significant political endeavours to accomplish a peaceful situation. The morals of activities amid the war could be checked by the constraint of the military task inside the borders of Kuwait. The sway and honesty of borders of Iraq were respected. The tremendous size of the association of the worldwide international communities may be viewed as suitable moral authenticity to legitimize the Gulf war (Blum & William 2005).
International cooperation is another important point of analysis in the Gulf war. It was developed by the international cooperation that included forces and states from different continents around the world. These forces include the Muslim or Arab communities, neutral countries, Warsaw pact and Soviet Union to release Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi troops made the world to realize the fact that security of sensitive regions will be effected, if proper action will not be taken. It was also believed that insinuations of the invasion of Iraq will be confined to Kuwait and other Gulf countries. Due to this, the Gulf war created the fear among international communities which made them to take collective actions to maintain the peace all around the world. The international coalition is an excellent example of global cooperation as it made them to take collective actions to bring peace (Barzilai & Gad 2003).
After the two hours of invasion of Iraqi troops in the Kuwait, the words of United States president on January 16 1991 had showed the “language of liberalism” focusing another world described by the standards of peacekeeping, the United Nation and the international law. One of the best claimed triumphs of the President Bush’s activities in the Gulf was his capacity to activate such an expansive cooperation of countries through the United Nations to help “Operation Desert Storm”. Also, apparently essential to this help was his entreaty with fundamental aspects of the international law. According to the Herring, (2005), “With the defence of democracy a relatively less important rationale – most in the West viewed Kuwait as a feudal democracy – an alternative legitimating principle came into play.”
Although, the war was led by the United States. They were supported by the army of other 28 countries under a mandate of the United States. Moreover, the US got support from both prominent Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia as well as western liberal countries. The point that supports the liberalism is the concern of America with getting authorization of securing United Nations and establishment of an international cooperation as a prove of the significance of both institutions along with the multilateralism. People who supported liberalism said that enhanced level of co-action and interdependence via multilateral organizations also restrained the execution of force with the help of enhancing the significance of economics as an instrument of policy development in international matters. They highlighted the role of japan. It involved no war, but it was the 2nd largest economy of the world with its interest to getting access to reserves of oil, heavily funded the Gulf war (Menashri, 2010).
Another important point discussed in different literatures that the United Nation and United States provided different justifications to public about their involvement in that conflict. One of the most prominent justification was the violation of integrity of Kuwait boundaries by the Iraqi troops. Moreover, the United States supported its ally that is Saudi Arabia, who was very significant in that region of the world. Firstly, the Saudi Arabia was a major oil supplier which made it a very important in terms of politics as well as geography. During the visit of secretary of Defence of United States, the king of Saudi Arabia of that time requested the military assistance from the United States (Karsh, 2010).
During the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi troops, the west was concerned about the threat on the Saudi Arabia posed by the Iraq. After the invasion of Kuwait, the army of Iraq could have easy access to oil fields of Saudi Arabia. By controlling these oil fields, Iraq would gain control on most of the oil reserves around the world. Secondly, Saudi Arabia also granted some loan to Iraq during its war with the Iran. Liberals believe that Saddam Hussain did not want to pay the debit. Sadam Hussain threaten the Kingdom of Saudi verbally. He stated that Saudi Arabia was unworthy and illegitimate guardian of the cities of Medina and Mecca. The Iraqi army was ready to launch an attack on the Saudi Arabia to invade the country. During that time, the United States president launched a mission to stop Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia which is one of the important reasons behind the Gulf war in 1990 to 1991 as explained by several liberals.
The harsh response from the international communities regarding the invasion of Kuwait raised a question that “why did the US led military coalition against Iraq? In the speech made by the United States president Bush after some days of Iraqi troops invasion. In that speech he explained the policy of United States related to the conflict. According to several liberal ideas, in the Gulf side of the world, stability was very important that needed a power balance and Iraq breached that power of balance. The area was one of the sensitive regions of the world in terms of security as well as economy. United States could not ignore that event which might produce serious consequences. Moreover, the Iraq can put the security of other Arab countries in danger particularly Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, the United States is not just worried about the regional security of Gulf countries, but it was also considered as a big threat towards a national interest of the United States. According to the Bennett, & Paletz, (2004), new international laws were developed after the cold war. The national security sphere of the United States had increased to the whole world. It was strategy of the America in an era that began after the end of Soviet Union. Thus, it was necessary for the United States to prevent a security vacuum in that region of the world to get control over the oil industry of the modern world. The presence of American military even after the complete removal of Iraqi troops from the Kuwait provided prove about the national interest of United States. According to the Munro & Alan (2006), objectives related to the national interest was a major driver of invasion by the Iraq and American interventions. The idea was further supported by the Bush, (1991) that due to imbalance of power, one state seemed to be a threat for the other state in terms of both security and national interest. Besides this, both Iraq and United States considered war as a way to expand their politics rather than an aberration.
Other justifications that are provided by United States and United Kingdom about their involvement in this conflict was related with the history of Iraq about the violation of Human rights. It was known by many experts and governments that Iraq had chemical weapons and biological weapons. They used these weapons against the Iranian troops during their war with the Iran. They also used these weapons against the Kurdish population. Iraq was also famous for their nuclear weapon programs. During the invasion, the troops from Iraq had committed many crimes. For instance, the Iraqi troops had looted and ransacked private homes of Kuwaiti homes (Karsh, 2010).
The Iraq War in 1990 to 1991, a long way from being in opposition to idea realism and the exemplification of liberal motivation, is direct clear as a “hegemonic-pragmatist war”. It is valid regardless of the way that it may have been a poor use of “hegemonic realism” and was in numerous pivotal courses screwed up in its execution (Little & Allan, 1997).
Containing over 60 percent of the world’s recoverable oil resources, Gulf countries had been seen by policymakers of the US as indispensable to the “American hegemonic framework”. The United States had endeavoured significant endeavours to produce collusions, enlist customers and finance benevolent administrations in the region. American hegemonic great methodology in the Middle East never connected any noteworthiness to political democratization. Besides this, the United States had fashioned close relations with an assortment of feudal and autocratic monarchical administrations who routinely disregarded Western and American standards of political responsibility and Human rights (Friedman, 2001).
For the policymakers of United States, Sadam Hussain was a real threat, because he posed a threat for the order of American in that region. The Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait and they had an objective of national consolidation of Pan-Aran. It marked for the removal of ancient administration in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. To American policymakers, there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein pretended a revisionist threat to the American order in the region (Waas, 1991).
It is also important to discuss other aspect of that war that is related with the question that why Iraq did not show positive response on diplomatic ropes. Given the technical superiority and size of the coalition force that were led by the United States against them. The war caused serious consequences in Iraq and caused massive destruction. Saddam Hussain chose the risky path and his wrong perceptions about his opponents cost serious damages to Iraq. I think one of the points that might be developed in the mind of Saddam Hussain that he could avoid a military defeats. According to the Halliday, (2004), the people around the Saddam Hussain who gave them advice that United States might not use military forces against Iraq. There were various reports sent before the war to the Saddam Hussain that Iraqi army was not well-positioned and it was inevitable to resist coalition forces.
Saddam Hussain did not think that taking his army out from Kuwait as a threat for his power. He was very happy to take risky actions to absorb risky army attack from the coalition forces. Even though, he knew from his sources of military intelligence that his army will lose in the battle ground. However, he had some hopes inside him that something good will happen. According to the Kinsley, (1991), “In a strange way, the fact that he survived in power despite the war, the popular uprisings against his rule after the war, and continued economic sanctions, confirmed the twisted wisdom of his choice.”
Several scholars tried to explain the invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi troops. They emphasized that Saddam Hussain personality was the main factor, his proclivity, his ambition and his aggressiveness in terms of both political and personal towards violence. He was considered as a major force in the politics of Iraq after late 1970s. Moreover, he had shown in the past an ability to retreat in the face of superior force. Without any doubt a leader who likes to avoid conflict, risk averse and less ambitious may choose diplomatic way to deal with that issue unlikely what Saddam Hussain did. However, some people believe that not only the personality of Saddam Hussain but circumstances that he faced during that period had stimulated Saddam decision to invade. Besides this, if the decision of Saddam Hussain to invade Kuwait was completely relied on cost-benefit analysis, then he would like to wait for two to three more years. After that period his nuclear programs will be able to produced effective nuclear weapons (Mearsheimer, & Walt, 2003).
Conclusion
Gulf war has provided large number of opportunities to support the liberalism theory to explain different aspects of that war. However, it was also proved that no theory had explained the different aspects of that war effectively. Classical liberal theories explain different reasons for behaviour of Iraq against the Kuwait. Along with this, it also explained the international reaction and involvement in the war and its consequences. International cooperation is another important point of analysis in the Gulf war. It was developed by the international cooperation that included forces and states from different continents around the world. These forces include the Muslim or Arab communities, neutral countries, Warsaw pact and Soviet Union to release Kuwait.
The essay can be concluded by stating that classical liberalism has provided a logical picture of how international communities and politics acted at the time of the Gulf War and also emphasized that how world needs to be deal with similar types of crisis in the future.
References
Waas, M. (1991). What Washington Gave Saddam for Christmas. Sifry. MIcahl L. and Cref, Christopher, Eds, the Gulf War: History, Documents, Opinions.
Kinsley, M. (1991). Taking international law seriously. The Gulf War Reader: History, Documents, Opinions. New York, NY: Times Books, 221-224.
Herring, E. (2005). Danger and opportunity: Explaining international crisis outcomes. Manchester University Press.
Halliday, F. (2004). The Gulf war 1990–1991 and the study of international relations. Review of International Studies, 20(2), 109-130.
Friedman, T. L. (2001). Washington’s Vital Interests. The Gulf War Reader: History, Documents, Opinions, 203-206.
Bush, G. H. (1991). The Liberation of Kuwait has Begun. The Gulf War Reader: History, Documents, Opinions, Random House, New York.
Austvik & Ole Gunnar (2003). “The War Over the Price of Oil” (http://www.kaldor.no/energy/glob9205.htm). International Journal of Global Energy Issues.
Barzilai & Gad (2003). Klieman, Aharon and Shidlo, Gil. ed. The Gulf Crisis and Its Global Aftermath. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-08002-9.
Little & Allan (1 December 1997). “Iraq coming in from the cold?” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/ from_our_own_correspondent/newsid_34000/34588.stm). BBC. Retrieved 4 December 2005
Munro & Alan (2006). Arab Storm: Politics and Diplomacy Behind the Gulf War. I.B. Tauris. ISBN 1-84511-128-1
Blum & William (2005). Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (http://web. archive.org/web/20080123202318/http://members.aol.com/bblum6/iraq2.htm). Common Courage Press. ISBN 1-56751-052-3. Archived from the original (http://members.aol.com/bblum6/iraq2.htm) on 2008-01-23. Retrieved 4 December 2005.
Bennett, W. L., & Paletz, D. L. (Eds.). (2004). Taken by storm: The media, public opinion, and US foreign policy in the Gulf War. University of Chicago Press.
Menashri, D. (2010). Iran: A decade of war and revolution(Vol. 237). London: Holmes & Meier.
Karsh, E. (2010). Geopolitical determinism: The origins of the Iran-Iraq war. Middle East Journal, 44(2), 256-268.
Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2003). An unnecessary war. Foreign Policy, (134), 50.
