Deterrence is a psychological tactic that uses threats in order to influence the will and perception of the adversary. In 1990, United States half-heartedly attempted to use deterrence against Iraqi aggression and failed to stop the invasion of Kuwait. Prior to the invasion of Kuwait, United States did not fully recognize the potential threats that Saddam Hussein posed. Saddam Hussein was committed and persistent to establish control over Kuwait’s assets and its oil resources, because he desperately needed them to rebuild Iraqi economy and establish his power in the Gulf (elaborate). His motivations left him no other choice except for invading defenseless Kuwait . As the result, Iraq’s forces with brutal swiftness occupied over Kuwait’s oil within 48 hours. As the response, an international coalition led by United States launched the Operation Desert Storm to deter Hussein further expansion. Evidently, Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait threatened the U.S. and other western nations’ oil interests in the Middle East. The implication of deterrence was used against Hussein but it was impossible to deter Iraq. In this paper, I argued that the United States failed to deter Iraq from invading Kuwait due to the Saddam Hussein’s misperception of the military capabilities of the United States, and his motivations to invade Kuwait for its natural oil resources.
Deterrence is the use of threats or force to persuade the opponent that the risks or costs of an aggression outweigh its benefits. Deterrence is a psychological tactic that seeks to influence the adversary’s will and motivation. It engages the opponent in cost-and-benefits analysis by creating the fear of consequences. To deter, one needs to credibly convince his opponent the aggression i...
... middle of paper ...
...ther choices except for conquering Kuwait’s oil to resolve his financial and military problems. Hussein was not rational to realize what forces array at him. He underestimated U.S. will and capability to get involve. On the other hand, the threat from the United States was not credible because it was too ambiguous and it did not show the United States’ commitment to protect Kuwait. The deterrence against Saddam Hussein was an impossible mission because the threat was not effective in this study due to high motivation and the misperception of capability. The invasion of Kuwait is significant because it shows even a powerful state like United States can fail to deter a smaller state. In conclusion, deterrence against Saddam Hussein was an impossible mission because the threat was not effective in this study due to high motivation and the misconception of capability.
Houser, K. (2014). Nature of Crime, Deterrence Theory. Lecture conducted from Temple University, Ambler, Pa.
Saddam Hussein’s main purpose of sending troops to take over Kuwait was to take control of their oil fields, which Hussein believed would be an easy task; however, he failed to understand that the United States and United Nations were keeping a very close watch on the Iraqi’s actions. Hussein also had other motives, such as freeing himself from the debt he was drowning in from the Iran-Iraq War just two years earlier. He set the pretense for war with Kuwait by defining their refusal to give land to Iraq as an act of military belligerence. President Bush ordered the United States to respond just five days after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. If the United States had not taken action, Hussein would have possibly continued to invade other oil producing countries and take control of the United States main sources of oil as well as threaten a number of innocent people’s lives.
...eory. Though further testing needs to establish if this theory is correct, it will provide a single theory for deterrence, eliminating the possibility of accidentally excluding essential issues, and provide more resources to those trying to distinguish between deterrence and defiance.
In September 1980, a very destructive war with Iran was started by Saddam Hussein. This was a result of an invasion in Iran. This invasion spurred an eight year war. Saddam used c...
...The lack of diplomatic leadership was also a great factor; he describes Iraq as it lacked political and social legitimacy. Fitzgerald’s research on the invasion of Kuwait article summarizes their history and provides a clear overview of the history of the relationships between Iraq and Kuwait (Hassan 28). This helps the people to get a clear picture on the kind of problems that faced the Middle Eastern countries. The article provides a better knowledge with worthwhile information on the occurrences that destabilized the Middle Eastern countries. It mentions the reign of Saddam Hussein who was one of the most powerful dictators that did not bow down to Western influences (Musallam 67). As a result of his tough skin it led to a war that could have been avoided. In conclusion, war creates danger for any economy and while peace provides for steady economic growth.
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
The Persian Gulf War was a time period of confusion. H.W. Bush was just elected into presidency in the United States. The Cold War had subsided and the Berlin Wall had just been torn down. It all seemed calm for the brief years preceding the Persian Gulf War. Nobody expected Iraq to invade Kuwait, the Middle East was blindsided. Nations within the area called for help to stop Iraq from wherever they could get it. The United States responded fast and with action. President H.W. Bush sent in troops and supplies to calm this unexpected invasion, but it soon became an all-out war. Saddam Hussein ruled over Iraq during this time, and he sent his military to invade Kuwait. The causes of the war are often not thought of, but the effects of the war are widely known. These effects are devastating for every country that was involved in this conflict.
The fact that ther are numerous Defense policies and situations competing for a president’s attention means that it is worthwhile to organize political activity in order to affect his agenda. A president may be compelled to reconsider a problem even though he could not overtly be force to alter the prevailing policy. If presidents are convinced that the current policy is best, the likelihood of gaining sufficient force to compel a change is quiete small. The man who can build foreign policies will find presidents beating a path to his door.
American policy was conflicted on multiple fronts. There was a high-perceived threat, but the means devised to cope with it fell short o...
Specific Deterrence vs. General Deterrence: The purpose of punishing and threatening to punish civilians is to diminish or at least limit the frequency of societies’ criminal activity, in terms of deterrence. The wholly aim of deterrence is to obstruct an individual’s potential offense by means of insertion of fear. Specific deterrence solely applies to individuals who have been administered with some type of punishment, that ultimately render him/her with fear of being penalized again when he contemplates on offending in the future. On the other hand, general deterrence applies to the public at large. It refers to a general understanding and fear that certain unlawful behaviors will be followed upon by a punishment.
Deterrence – is connected to punishment where it is a way to let a person who has committed a crime know and to let the rest of society or those looking to commit a crime know it will not be tolerated or accepted and there is the possibility of some form of punishment. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) If a person or society sees what can happen if they commit a crime by seeing what happens to others then they are more likely to obey the laws and live an honest lifestyle.
Deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a lesson whatever action that participated in. Specific deterrence is founded on a principle called hedonistic calculus meaning, “an assumption that human nature leads people to pursue pleasure and avoid pain” (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2010, p 155).
The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition. The US wanted to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime and bring democracy. To addition to that, US and its allies believed that Iraq had secret stocks of chemical and nuclear weapons, hence Iraq was a threat to the world (Axford 2010). In March 2003, US air bombed Baghdad and Saddam escaped Iraq. The invasion disarmed the government of Saddam Hussein. President Bush in March 2003 gave a premature speech, that tyrant of Iraq has fallen and US has freed its people. President Bush flew into Iraq to show the world that the war is over, even though nothing was accomplished (Kirk et al. 2014). Iraq was facing 13 years of scantions, therefore regime diverted its resources to flexible networks of patronage that kept it in power (Dodge 2007, 88). Iraq faced widespread of lawlessness and after the violent regime changed US could not control the situation. Iraqi civilians were looting, attacking ministries building and this resulted into a series of event (Kirk et al. 2014) . From a military perspective the regime was taken down, but they made no commitment to rebuild or secure the country.
Deterrence suggests that people are “deterred” from a crime by the threat of punishment. In other words, people won’t commit a crime if the ramifications that were to follow are so severe. Deterrence comes in two flavors, specific and general. Specific deterrence refers to the “threat of punishment” being directly aimed towards a particular individual who has already committed the crime through actually experiencing the punishment first hand. An example of this may be, being convicted of a crime and as a result being sentenced to so many years in jail or prison. However, in order for it to be successful, the “previously ...
Deterrence is a theory of International relations based in Realism. Essentially, it tries to explain the situation of when two or more states threaten retaliation if attacked, in order to deter the attack. It is therefore possible to very simply state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main questions have to be addressed, ‘Has it worked?’ and ‘Does it make sense?’ To answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such a policy. Deterrence, as already stated, can concern itself with any form of threatened counter-attack, however, for this essay, I shall be concentrating on Nuclear deterrence, using examples from the cold war, therefore, when the word ‘deterrence’ is used, it should be taken as ‘nuclear deterrence’. Hedley Bull describes deterrence as follows: "To say that country A deters country B from doing something is to imply the following: (i) That Country A conveys to Country B a threat to inflict punishment or deprivation of values if it embarks on a certain course of action; (ii) That Country B might otherwise embark on that course of action; (iii) That Country B believes that Country A has the capacity and the will to carry out the threat, and decides for this reason that the course of action is not worthwhile." Therefore, for deterrence to occur, a state must convey a message to another state, usually "these will be the public an authoritative utterances of government officials." Secondly, to use Hedley Bulls’ language, country B would consider following a course of action which Country A does not wish and does not because of the threat - not because it has no interest to. Thirdly, Country A must be able to convince Country B that it is capable of carrying out its deterrence threat and is prepared to use it. Mutual deterrence is where two or more states deter each other from following a set of actions - effectively a stand off or a stalemate between the actors. The concept of deterrence can be seen easily in public statements, for example, Churchill told Parliament on Britains hydrogen bomb was, "the deterrent upon the Soviet union by putting her....on an equality or near equality of vulnerability," a soviet ...