U.S. Involvement in the Gulf War
Thesis: United States Military Strategy used for the Persian Gulf before, during and after the war was successful and reinforced the
U.S. National Security Objectives.
I. Military Strategy Equation:
A. Shape
B. Respond
C. Prepare Now
II. National Security Objectives
III. Approaches to Military Strategy
A. United States
B. Iraq
IV. Military Strategic Concepts
The U.S. involvement in the Gulf War achieved success through the military strategy that was used. The three elements of the military strategy equation were: Shape, Respond and Prepare Now. (BD 30, U.S. Military Strategy). Shaping the international environment of the "Gulf War Crisis" with diplomatic and political reasons was uniform. Among allies, especially among threatened allies, the ultimate military test was: will you show up when you say you will? In the post-cold war world, there is only one superpower. Like it or not, Superpower action or inaction when aggression occurs does set the tone for behavior. On August 2,1990 the Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein gambled that the Saudis and the rest of the world would tremble, and ignore the tiny emirate of Kuwait that had just been invaded. Saddam reasoned that the fragile Arab relations with the west (United States), weak Gulf Arab armies, the existence of Israel, and his own armies' power would reduce resistance to political howls. There was the question of the United States itself. It had military might, but with the legacy of Vietnam, and the frustrating experience in Lebanon, and its dependence on oil…was the time right? Saddam seemed to think so (Bay 26). However; The United States immediate response to the Gulf crisis was sen...
... middle of paper ...
..." and "flexible response" military Strategic concepts. In the end, Iraq's self-interests were defeated and the United States' vital interests were secured by the successful application of U.S. Military Strategy.
Bibliography:
Sources Cited
Bay, Austin, and Dunnigan, James F. From Shield to Storm.
New York: William Morrow and Company, INC., 1992.
Dudley, William, and Tipp, Stacey L. IRAQ: Current Controversies.
California: Greenhaven Press, 1991.
Field Manual 100-5, Department of the Army, Operations.
June 1993.
Mahnken, Thomas G. " The Gulf War and Future Warfare "
Diss. Naval War College, 1997
Summers, Harry G. On Strategy II: A Critical Analysis of the Gulf War.
New York: Dell Publishing, 1992.
Woodward, Bob The Commanders
Simon & Schuster, 1991.
Over 500,000 troops were in the Gulf at the beginning of Desert Storm.(Persian Gulf War Britannica) In 1990 USA made their way into Kuwait to defend them from Iraq.(Persian Gulf War Britannica) The Iraqis were very poor from the war they had just suffered and they needed money. (Persian Gulf War Britannica) So they decide to invade Kuwait for their oil supply so the Iraqis could sell oil to make money. (Persian Gulf War Britannica) What they didn’t know was the U.S. were buying the oil from Kuwait and the U.S. wanted Kuwait to have oil. (Persian Gulf War Britannica) So the U.S. defended Kuwait and attacked the Iraqis. (Persian Gulf War Britannica) They did this by sending over 100,000 troops
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution vs. the War on Iraq In August of 1964, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the closest thing there was to declaring war on Vietnam. A war that resulted in millions of people dying, and the loss of liberties for a large number of people. The Resolution was passed because the government (and the American people) believed that the Vietnamese had fired torpedoes at a US destroyer on routine patrol in the Tonkin Gulf on August 2, 1964. It was also reported that a second deliberate attack happened against a pair of ships two days later on August 4, 1964.
Brigade General Scales, Robert H. JR. Certain Victory. The U.S. Army in the Gulf War.
Operation Desert Shield was launched by President H.W. Bush to increase the amount of forces and troops in areas surrounding Kuwait and mainly in Saudi Arabia in response to the 120,000 troops and 2,000 tanks invading Kuwait. The United Nations called for the Iraqi army’s extraction from their presence in Kuwait, however Hussein went ag...
In this paper, I will provide a Battle Analysis and outline the events leading up to and surrounding the Battle of 73 Eastings (refers to a north-south grid line). In addition, I will describe how the United States Army’s (USA) 2nd Armored Calvary Regiment (ACR) defeated forces from the Iraqi Republican Guard (IRG) using speed, technology and superior combat power. Although some consider the Battle of 73 Eastings extremely successful, some consider it a failure due to the large amount of Iraqi forces that retreated towards Bagdad. Lastly, I will analyze how each side used their intelligence assets and what they could have used to change the outcome.
This doctrine stated that the US would use military force when deemed necessary to protect its interest in the Persian Gulf.
This new threat begins a continued influence other areas of American involvement such as in the Korean Conflict. The United States aided the Republic of Korea “…to promote world peace and general welfare.” As part of the police power it became, starting with its origins with Theodore Roosevelt, and solidifying its role after the Second World War. With the Gulf War part of the reason the United States intervened was to stop the atrocities of Saddam Hussain on the nation of Kuwait. This example of the Gulf War shows that principles from Theodore Roosevelt Presidency and into Harry Truman’s presidency still continue to affect foreign policy to some degree in America today.
What was the major strategy applied by the United States in these cases? How would the most powerful nation react, lead or response to the threats? As I pointed out before, there was no stringent course recognizable. America reacted in every case differently with no clear guidelines to use of force or national interest visible. To prove this statement, I will take a look at the lecture of each case and draw...
Morin, Jean H., and Richard Howard Gimblett. Operation Friction: 1990 - 1991 ; the Canadian Forces in the Persian Gulf. Toronto [u.a.: Dundurn, 1997. Print. (Secondary Book)
...ot afford to lose its predominance in oil rich gulf region. Saddam’s defiance challenged American supremacy and consequently, a planned invasion of Iraq was launched by U.S. and her allied forces in 2003. The invasion had two-fold objectives: one was to secure oil resources in Iraq and other was to reassert its Political-economic dominance in the region which is of great strategic importance to US. Realist theory narrows down the scope of interpretation of war to power politics characterized by military capability while critical and Marxist thinking employs “historical structures” to understand why power is being exercised in a certain way. It broadens the scope of concept of power beyond military perspective. Thus, Iraq war which was fought beyond the scope of “offensive realism” can be better understood within the theoretical framework of Critical/ Marxist theory.
Containment seemed to be the strategy of choice for the United States. This strategy also gave America a reason t...
In September 1980, Iraq invaded Iran because of a territorial dispute. This led to a long drawn out war that cost many lives and billions of dollars in damages, with either side unable to claim victory. This paper will focus on the three things that distinguish this war from previous wars. First, it was an excessively protracted and attritive war, lasting eight years, essentially destabilizing the region and devastating both countries. Second, it was a disproportionate war in regards to the means employed by either side. Iraq was supported by Kuwait, the United States, and several other Western European countries, allowing them to acquire advanced weapons and expert training (History.com staff, 2009). Lastly, this war used three modes of warfare not seen in previous wars: ballistic-missile attacks, the use of chemical weapons, and attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf (History.com staff, 2009).
Although the United Sates and Saudi Arabia present the United States and Saudi Arabia’s relationship as excellent, there are actually two nations who have bitter disagreements but who allies through oil. The only thing that has held this alliance together is the US dependence on Saudi oil. The United States has felt and still fells that it is a necessity to have bases present in the Middle East to protect oil, and silently to protect Israel. The relationship began in 1933 when Standard Oil of California signed an agreement with the Saudi government. In 1943 FDR affirmed that the defense of Saudi Arabia was a vital interest to the United States and moved troops into the region. Future presidents would emulate this declaration and mobilization of troops to Saudi Arabia. Again in 1945 Abd al Aziz, the Saudi king, and FDR would cement this alliance, on a US warship in the Suez Canal. Soon after, airfields were constructed at Dhahran and other spots over Saudi Arabia; beginning a long tradition of US military facilities in Saudi Arabia. Abd al Aziz was the first of his line of successors to meet with US presidents. The relationship was only strengthened with the onset on the Cold war, as the US used the bases in Saudi Arabia as potential air force launch sites to the USSR and constructed more military facilities. In 1941 Harry S. Truman made another assertion of Americas protection and alliance with Saudi Arabia to Abd Al Aziz. Truman stated that “support for Saudi Arabia’s territorial integrity and political independence was a primary objective of the United States.” (Countrystudies.com) Another stipulation of this pact was that the US established a permanent military training mission in the Saudi Arabia. That mission lasted until 1992. Soon after the pact between Truman and Aziz was agreed upon the US-Saudi relationship would endure its first major disagreement. On May 14th, 1948 Israel was declared an independent state in the former Arab dominated Palestine. Israel’s independence was backed the United States. Saudi Arabia refused to acknowledge the country of Israel and to engage in any relations with them. The Saudis concerns of the Israel-US relationship were reinforced in the 1970’s and 1980’s when the US sold arms to Israel, but refused to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. In some cases congressional leaders refused to sell arms to Saudi Arabia on the grounds that Saudi Arabia might use them against Israel.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
In modern military theory, the highest level is the strategic level, in which activities at the strategic level focus directly on policy objectives, both during peace and warfare. In the study of modern military strategy, there is a distinction between military strategy and national strategy, in which the former is the use of military objective to secure political objectives and the latter coordinates and concentrates all the elements of national...