Rethinking the 1991 Gulf War
And yet the Persian Gulf war occupies a more complex place in military history than the hagiography suggests. The generalship was not without its faults, and the White House decision to bring the conflict to a close before all of Mr. Hussein’s Republican Guard divisions were destroyed has remained a subject of debate, even among ranking officers who were on the battlefield.
The 1991 gulf conflict may have been a “war of necessity,” as its supporters say, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq a “war of choice.” But it was the outcome of the first gulf war, which left Mr. Hussein in power and forced the United States to carry out more than a decade of air patrols over northern and southern Iraq, that presented the United States with that choice…
According to American intelligence, half of the Republican Guard tanks escaped as of March 1, 1991. Significantly, headquarters units also survived, and this helped Iraqi generals reconstitute their forces and put down the Shiite uprising that began in the south afterward.
At cease-fire talks that were held in Safwan, Iraq, General Schwarzkopf agreed to an Iraqi request that the Iraqi military be allowed to fly helicopters in southern Iraq because so many bridges had been destroyed. But the Iraqi military abused this concession by using the helicopters to attack the Shiite insurgents. The United States, along with its British and French allies, did not establish a no-fly zone in southern Iraq until August 1992.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Rethinking = revisionist history
Operation Desert Storm had clear objectives—-to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Those objectives were met.
ted c on January 1, 2013 at 9:47 PM
Schwarzkopf isn’t even cold in his grave…
Wethal on January 1, 2013 at 9:48 PM
Yeah, it was a mistake to not take Saddam out back then. Not the only mistake of that Bush. Bush’s in general just simply suck!
astonerii on January 1, 2013 at 9:49 PM
Clear and achievable objectives.
Booting out a tinpot thug from a nation he’d run over? Perfectly doable.
Bringing 21st century Western civilization to a land that’s been ruled by the bloody cult of a pedophilic ‘prophet’ of a barbaric moon god since before Columbus was in diapers, without first depopulating the area? NOT SO MUCH.
MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Yeah, I’m sure that the NYT would have been fully on board a US military push to Baghdad and occupation of Iraq in 1991.
Mark1971 on January 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM
NYT: Since our predictions about the Gulf Wars were all wrong, let’s come up with some wrong conclusions, too.
Knott Buyinit on January 1, 2013 at 9:52 PM
The mistake was the continued involvement in Iraqi affairs following the war. Kick his butt back to Baghdad and then walk away.
The idea that Saddam could be made to behave like a nice man, or that there was a nice man waiting around who could replace him was the mistake. The ruler of Iraqi was always going to be a SOB, and since there was already one in charge (Saddam), don’t worry about it.
sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 9:55 PM
And if the US had gone beyond the UN mandate to remove Saddaam from Kuwait the first people calling for impeachment of Bush would have been the traitors at the NYT.
Ted Torgerson on January 1, 2013 at 9:55 PM
Well, who put Saddam in power in the first place?
Notorious GOP on January 1, 2013 at 9:56 PM
From My standpoint, the only mistake occurred in the aftermath – the southern no-fly zone. The less Shiites, the better.
OldEnglish on January 1, 2013 at 9:58 PM
Carter?
astonerii on January 1, 2013 at 9:59 PM
That is a very good point. Liberals make a lot of noise about us ‘supporting dictators’, but the sad truth is some places aren’t suitable for anything BUT dictators. Either because the populace has no idea what to do with democracy or the region is so hideously unstable or WTF-ever.
One of the hardest things in my entire life was coming to the realization that American democracy cannot work everywhere. It REALLY blew a hole in my patriotic-but-badly-simplistic worldview. But I realize now that it’s undeniably true.
MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 9:59 PM
Saddam himself at the head of the Ba’ath party.
sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 10:00 PM
Right. And we were innocent bystanders in their war with Iran.
Notorious GOP on January 1, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Well the US inherited a tradition that goes back for hundreds of years. Its a lot to expect that people can make up for that developmental time-line in the space of a few short years.
Besides, Islam has been a stones throw across the Mediterranean for 1,400 years and hasn’t embraced civil liberties, or western civilization in all that time, so I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 10:04 PM
Kissinger on the Iran-Iraq war: “It’s a shame they both can’t lose.”
Wethal on January 1, 2013 at 10:07 PM
So you thought the US put Saddam in power and now that you can’t blame America for that, you desperately search for something else to blame America for. Because its got to be America’s fault SOMEHOW…we all know that right?
We wanted the oil to flow, and Iran was messing with that so we backed their enemy. How could America be so selfish as to look out for its own interests? How could they do it? *heartfelt weeping now ensues*
sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 10:08 PM
Putting together a broad coalition meant bringing many different parties to the table. Many of our ‘allies’ were directly opposed to making a regime change a primary objective. The lesson from the first gulf war is to create a coalition around your objectives and not the other way around. Its much better to have a small coalition of true allies (UK, et al) and get the job done. Did we really need Egypt and Syria’s blessing on this?
BohicaTwentyTwo on January 1, 2013 at 10:09 PM
May I assume you meant the British ideal of spreading civilization?
MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 10:11 PM
Actually, that is where I think the Democracy crusading came from. The British ideal was to spread civilization, dress the savages, and teach them to be good Christians. The modern version centers around democracy, womens schools, and purple thumbs, but isn’t all that much different in spirit.
sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 10:16 PM
A bit more than you might think. While the British version was at times harsh and cruel, it was effective because they had the spine to make the barbarians bow to civilization. They had no Disney Pocahontas fantasies of how unwashed pagans lived and treated each other, particularly their women.
What we’re trying to do is skip the civilizing because it’s hard and un-PC and instead just go straight to “one person, one vote” democracy. And it ain’t working. It is not physically possible to bring democracy to a people who A: have not been anywhere near subjugated and B: have lived their entire lives under utter savagery.
Until the supposedly ‘conquered’ barbarians are actually afraid to sneer at you behind your back, wet their pants at the thought of taking up arms against you, and at least one generation has grown up under at least something approaching civilization, any gains made will be temporary.
MelonCollie on January 1, 2013 at 10:28 PM
It didn’t work for the British either. None of the conquered peoples embraced Democracy after the end of colonialism. The Anglo-Saxon colonies did, but not those lacking British culture.
Culture is stronger than most people believe. It can change given time, but it requires a great deal of time and is very slow to shift even on the most basic of things. You can rule a country with force, but altering their cultural heritage is a far larger task, and one not wisely engaged in by the faint of heart.
sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 10:40 PM
Perfect…
Try to piss on the legacy of the only American General to execute a successful ground war in 100 hours, expel an invading army, and gain a cease fire in record time.
I’m sure Stormin’ Norman wasn’t perfect, but leading up the ground war and the execution of the same, he was darn close. He saved a lot of American lives, and that cannot be understated.
Besides, that war was run from the Oval Office, and Schwarzkopf found a way to be spectacular even with that obstacle. That, and our muslim “allies” refused to advance ahead of American troops.
If you read the NYT, you would believe the muslim troops liberated Kuwait City. Nope. American troops did, without a reporter in sight, and then ordered to pull back so the muslim troops with a reporting pool escort could take credit.
Hog Wild on January 1, 2013 at 10:54 PM
India?
lexhamfox on January 1, 2013 at 11:00 PM
More community based and syndicates than actual Democracy. Iraq voted as well, but that doesn’t make it a democracy.
sharrukin on January 1, 2013 at 11:08 PM
This.
And this.
blink on January 2, 2013 at 1:52 AM
Excellent takedown.
blink on January 2, 2013 at 1:53 AM
The Blame America First crowd are nothing if not consistent in their loathing of their own.
sharrukin on January 2, 2013 at 1:56 AM
When he seized de facto power in the 1970s, Iran was still under the Shah, and we wouldn’t touch Iraq with a ten-foot pole. Nice try, though.
In the meantime, the groundwork was laid for our subsequent wars. Iraq with Saddam meant unfinished business and Al Qaeda was formed in response to our intervention and continued presence in Arabia. (Maybe it or another movement would have been formed anyway, but it’s pretty clear Al Qaeda wasn’t about “Palestine” or “hating our freedoms,” but about the U.S. presence in the Peninsula.) Perhaps it was worth it to stop Saddam and illustrate that one country can’t militarily annex another without consequences (although, in exchange for their support in the Gulf War, we pretty much let Syria control Lebanon). But, in 1991, it seemed like the war would have little if any blowback (if I may use the term for overt operations), and that turned out to be wrong.
calbear on January 2, 2013 at 7:01 AM